Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Omony (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Omony

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don;t know if news stories can be told apart for pR for this profession, but for someone to be notable I'd expect major awards, which don;t seem to be present. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She appears to be doing some notable things, but agree that if any of them had received independent praise or endorsement from a notable body, that would be a lot better. She may just be grandstanding, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. --gilgongo (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First time I've heard giving the benefit of the doubt as an argument for keep! WP:NMODEL requires significant roles in multiple media, a large fan base or some kind of contribution to the field. Hosting your own TV show and being an ambassador for a minor non-profit isn't enough unfortunately. Gm545 (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gave it a crack, think it's good to go! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes our general notability guidelines. Article has been reorganized, de-adverted, expanded with more reliable secondary sources. She surely passes our guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite the WP:ILIKEIT argument, I think the additional sources confirm notability. Careful though, one of the links was malware which I had to delete. Keep your AV up to date! Gm545 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the additional sources confirm notability per WP:GNG. - tucoxn\^talk 23:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.