Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Omony


 * 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) 17:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sunday Omony

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe Sunday Omony is notable enough either as a model or a TV host to warrant a wikipedia article.

As a TV host, she fits none of the criteria listed on WP:CREATIVE:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - She is the host of a minor talk show on local cable, and does not even appear on her own station's website: http://shaw.ca/ShawTV/Calgary/Personalities/

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - No

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - No

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - No

As a model, she fits none of the criteria listed on WP:NMODEL:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - No

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - No

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - No Sonofacar (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The AfD was incorrectly entered. There's no notice in the article. Not sure how to fix or what else might be wrong in the process. Fixed by User:Taylor Trescott. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep - because from what I can see, she passes WP:GNG with the sources listed in the article. Any suggestion she doesn't? Not only is there coverage of her, there is coverage of the coverage! If she does, she doesn't also then need to pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMODEL. Additional criteria are designed to allow those subjects that might not pass WP:GNG to be considered notable for their contributions. A subject need not pass WP:GNG and an occupation-specific criteria. Stalwart 111  03:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes our general notability guidelines. Here's just a sample of reliable secondary sources. -- SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG; nominator's only contribution was this nomination.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:31, 23 November 2013 (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.