Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Prusack
I think there are good arguments on both sides of this AfD; I do want to register, though, that I don't agree all political spouses are ''necessarily'' non-notable until their spouse is elected. At very high levels--certainly in the U.S., in other places as well--the press often treats political spouses as if they are essentially also running for a public office. We may wish spouses did not play such a significant role--we may consider it anti-democratic--we may find it sexist to premise a woman's notability on her role as wife or potential wife--conversely we may be inclined to presume wives don't play an important role in their husband's campaign--but if press attention to a political wife plays a role in the campaign (particularly one like this, which reliable sources are treating as an event of world-historical scale), I'm inclined to see  obliging us (mercifully permitting us??) to defer to editorial judgment of reliable secondary sources rather than deciding amongst ourselves how much spouses count for. So I'm much more sympathetic to arguments about adequacy of sourcing for notability, than to "she's not important" arguments. But thus far I continue to believe we've satisfied the spirit of  with the sources to develop a balanced, neutral and moreover stable entry, and I don't think she has ''less'' coverage than others who have sometimes passed GNG here. Combined with the significance of the event she's related to (I'm informed by the  instruction that minor figures related to a single event may still merit a page when the event is as significant as, e.g., JFK's assassination), and the reader interest, I continue to think this standalone page does not hurt and rather helps the encyclopedia
— User:Innisfree987, 19:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:WHYN||WP:BIO1E (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)