Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie Eaton

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Eaton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article gives no reliable sources, and my searches have failed to produce any significant coverage in any reliable sources. All the evidence suggests she was a minor actress who mainly played fairly minor roles. (Note: PROD was removed with no explanation at all.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She played the lead in a B movie and had reasonably substantial roles in several more prestigious productions. She likely was part of the original cast of two Broadway plays (curse you IBDb for not providing enough info to confirm it is the same person). It also appears she was a painter of some note: the National Museum of Women in the Arts has a bare database listing for an artist with the same name (Marjorie Lee Eaton) and lifespan, while the Denver Post and AskART have more substantial information (the latter also with the same birth and death years and California connection). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and my hat is off to User:Clarityfiend. Apart from theater and the arts, this actress had a long and persistant career in film and television. And while many of her character roles were small, enough were significant enough for her to meet WP:ENT. Project and will benefit from article cleanup and sourcing, but addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reasoning along the lines of Schmidt's. Abundant citations findable through Google Books make her art background and movie career verifiable, and her roles are significant enough to meet the bar for notability. User:Clarityfiend does good work. --Lockley (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely, enough material here to satisfy need for an article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.