Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Doss


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. slakr \ talk / 14:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cat Doss

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. No significant roles in notable productions. Prod was removed with the dubious claim she has "mid-importance role in the upcoming film Captain America: The Winter Soldier". The imdb page used to support this statement does not list Doss at all, let alone for any "mid-importance" part. The claim of activism appears to be original research. It lists a 26 year old student Amanda Catherine Doss with no way of knowing if it's producer, actress, filmmaker Cat Doss. Even if those two things were supported by a reliable source they would not make her notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep What else are you looking for? The person's had quite a few film roles and is a reporter. Clearly people are looking for information about her since the page has been visited over 600 times in the past 90 days: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Cat_Doss. Its notable and people are looking for this information. How exactly would they be serviced by deleting the page? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What more am I looking for? Notability, verifiability, no original research. Just being in a few films does not make her notable. Just being a reporter is just someone doing a job, nothing notable there either. 600 views is not many, nothing special there (and how many of them are from you). Almost a third appear to be on the first day when the page was under construction, with you and new page patrollers looking at the page for construction reasons, not to look for info about her. Take them out and the figures are even more ordinary. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 05:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete  Unless sources meeting WP:BASIC are found, I was unsuccessful myself (and tried HIghbeam in addition to the usual suspects.)   --j⚛e deckertalk 15:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.