Deletion of Evelyn Young

Comment: Meets , with two lead roles, plus plenty of supporting ones. Meets  too. And she's been dead nearly 40 years. Why are we wasting time on this AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: This AfD is open already a while but all this while no case has been made for deletion. As is clear from the improved article, the actress meets both  and . If one were to claim that the films in which Young has lead roles are non-notable, these could be listed for deletion, however these films meet . My claim is not that |other stuff exists. I reject such arguments. Rather I'm pointing out that there are obvious dependencies here. It's like the category that is listed for rename but the name change should be discussed at the critical article for that category. Same with a lead actress of multiple feature films at the "Major film studio#Current|Big Six". Only if the movies are nevertheless proven non-notable it would even be conceivable that their lead actors are non-notable. And even then Young meets the . But without addressing the films no case for deletion would be possible. Sure, it is said in the intro that the actress is not notable by the relevant professional guideline. It is the how not notable by that guideline that defies logic without procedurally addressing the films. After all,  is crystal clear: actors ''are'' notable (amongst others) if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG||WP:NFILM||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:GNG||WP:NACTOR)

Comment: The Wildcat of Tucson'' and ''Prairie Schooners'' are not notable films by any stretch of the imagination, and the rest of her credits go downhill from there. Furthermore, passing mentions do not satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)