Deletion of Amanda Loncar

Comment: The subject's main role in ''The Loop'' seems to be the only role which would go towards . There may be another role, too, perhaps in a play, but I was not able to access the full ''Hollywood Reporter'' article via "google books": https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MMMqAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Amanda+Loncar%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Amanda+Loncar%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnjc3ewozpAhVrILcAHYwwAEAQ6AEIOTAC here. So I think the subject probably falls shy of ENT. And while there are a lot of hits at newspapers.com, the coverage appears to be all quite minor. She also gets some coverage in ''Deadline'' and ''Digital Spy'' articles, but it's mainly limited to saying that she landed a role in the pilot, ''Lovelies'', and then was replaced by another actress. Therefore, I don't think  is quite met, either. If anyone is able to provide any insight as to the ''Hollywood Reporter'' article I cited above, and whether it contains significant coverage, please let me know
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:GNG)

Comment: per Nom, JPL, and EXIST: {{tq|However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, ''especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface''.}} The inundation of Wikipedia with only IMDb sourced content (we are probably that site's biggest supporter) does not give the presumption of notability. When Wikipedia was a fledgling encyclopedia we gave greater latitude. At a point it is responsible to |back up content with reliable sources that support claims of |notability, especially concerning |BLP's. It is one thing to have a poorly sourced yet notable topic, but an unsourced career stub BLP, that is less than a |dictionary entry with an embedded list of a filmography section, backed by a source "generally" considered unreliable (placed in an "External links section), presenting "less" than we would consider as a |pseudo biography, fails our current otability (people)|notability guidelines as well as more than one policy. Asserting reliable sources exists is easy to state but we need significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources to advance notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:PROVEIT||WP:BLP||WP:NOTDICTIONARY||WP:PSEUDO||WP:N||WP:notability)