Deletion of Brigid Maher

Comment: without prejudice (struck the "keep" up above) and perhaps userfy the new version to the original author (with our thanks and a caution about COI).  I went through the article, cleaned it up, improved the format and style, addressed the hyperbole and fluff, and found some sources... but yes... I can admit defeat. The article is much prettier... and perhaps in the future this individual will receive more coverage... but she does not quite meet , does not (yet) meet ... fails  and barely tickles .  Thanks all for your patience, but this time I was Don Quixote. It was good practice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ARTIST)

Comment: as can find no evidence that subject meets  or  from Google News, Books & Scholar. Of her more main works, I could only find http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/adrift-in-the-heartland/Film?oid=1073204 a single review of her one feature film ''Adrift in the Heartland'' (and I'm not sure how |reliable that source is), and no reviews of her longer documentaries ''Veiled Voices'' or ''The King, the Lawyer and the Cheese
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ARTIST||WP:RS)

Comment: as any issues with the article's format or content can be dealt with through normal editing.  It would seem that the subject, even though seen as failing  or , could pass the |General Notability Guidelines http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=2002&as_user_hdate=2009&q=%22Brigid+Maher%22&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&q=%22Brigid+Maher%22&lnav=od&btnG=Go.  If enough independent reliable secondary sources discuss a topic in enough depth to put together a decent article, we'd better have a good reason to not have an article on that topic. In other words, "''A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.''"   explicitly includes and defers to the . In my opinion, the subject has enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so that the article should be kept... cleaned up certainly... but kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ARTIST||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:AUTO|Autobiography, and as such not |impartial or reliable; there appears to be a significant amount of exaggeration going on here - it talks the subject being given an award, but it appears this was actually a ''scholarship''; it talks about the films being award-winning but there is no evidence of this. Indeed, there is no ''|evidence'' of any notability at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:V)