Deletion of Sandra Seacat

Comment: I've been overhauling the article, getting rid of POV and working my way down the article. I've reviewed most of the articles cited, and have found new ones, and she appears to be more than a passing mention. Even the film she directed got mixed reviews and not just negative reviews; there was a fair amount of media hype with her directorial debut. She appears, as an acting coach, to have made a significant contribution to the field of entertainment and meets . Article still needs work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTORS)

Comment: what Metropolitan90 and Trusilver said. Citing  is besides the point where a considerable number of actors mention the teacher in reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)

Comment: per meeting otability (people).  The |cummulative coverage deals with her directly and in enough detail so an encyclopedic article can be maintained.http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Sandra+Seacat%22http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sandra+Seacat%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Sandra+Seacat%22  The result of |continued editing being that we have a now-decently-sourced BLP about an acting coach and instructor who was herself a theater, film, and television actress, before she turned to instructing others.  Kudos to User:AuthorAuthor and User:DavidESpeed for their continued work in giving it the nominator-suggested "complete overhaul" since this article was first nominated.  Sharing one's expertise and knowledge through teaching might indeed be reasonably expected to gain accolades from former students, and being influential to the work of others can show notability without such praise being referred to as .  This article is a welcome addition to Wikipedia... alongside those of her acting instructor peers Lee Strasberg, Constantin Stanislavski, Stella Adler, Robert Lewis, and Sanford Meisner.  Writing of her work as an actor and filmmaker is expected in a properly comprehensive BLP. ''Significant coverage'' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.  Praise from ones peers may be short but does not then become "trivial" simply because it is short. I do like that ''The New York Times'' called her "respected" and that ''CNN'' referred to her as "legendary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:HANDLE||WP:INHERITED)

Comment: I have been watching this for about a week and was originally leaning toward deletion. The article as it stood at the time of nomination was bloated and almost painful to read. I'm still slightly on the fence about it, as that I feel her notability is very marginal... but I'm going to err on the side of caution here. I don't feel that she fulfills the qualifications of , but I think there is enough extenuating notability to warrant inclusion. I would also like to commend AuthorAuthor on taking a poorly written article that is on the deletion block and turning it into quality work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FILMMAKER)

Comment: Very hard to verify notability given the substantial |link-spamming that has been undertaken in an effort, from what I can see, to justify '''Keep'''ing the article. Some refs are duplicated with different titles and it looks like that has been done to make it look like there are more refs than there actually are. Some are broken links or link to google searches or the like. Having checked quite a number of them, I've not managed to find more than a passing reference to the subject in any of them. Happy to be proven wrong
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:LINKSPAM)