Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Loncar
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
— User:Otr500, 11:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PROVEIT||WP:BLP||WP:NOTDICTIONARY||WP:PSEUDO||WP:N||WP:notability (Wikipedia:Verifiability)