Deletion of Harry Keaton

Comment: Very tough to make a flat declaration here in 2010 that roles in pre-intenet 1930's and 50's films are significant to those films or not, as there is a cinematic history to consider and notability in the 30's is still notability per .  Naturally, Harry being related to Buster will be part of many of these 133 news articles of Harry from the 30s until the present,http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Harry+Keaton%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a and in these 101 books.http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22Harry+Keaton%22  And another consideration is that while Louise is in fewer news articles,http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Louise+Keaton%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a, she is in more books.http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Louise+Keaton%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon&btnG=Search+Books.  Personally, I believe that in these cases, sources allow a presumption of notability per  and the articles (and project) will benefit from them being expanded and properly sourced... specially as these are not  nor a violation or .  Barring that, a merge to Buster's article should at the least be itself considered
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOT)