Deletion of Beverly Marsh

Comment: since GNG seems to be satisfied now.  Multiple sources have been identified between that have some significant coverage of Beverly. Already sourced CinemaBlend article discusses the strength of women she represents.  Americana Journal discusses her representation of an aspect of Baby Boomers.  The linked Dark Descent essays give enough context to show she is being analyzed on p 150 especially, being considered King's idea of the role and nature of women.  Also found this book https://books.google.com/books?id=TJZlLALvodMC&pg=PA42&dq=%22Beverly+Marsh%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8oJeGxYPlAhVRsZ4KHZAVCQEQ6AEwA3oECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Beverly%22%20-wikipedia&f=false which breaks her down on p. 95.  That's multiple independent, reliable, significant sources.  The article should be ''improved'' not ''deleted''.   in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article.  Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)