Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcock Family
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. King Jakob C2 15:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
- Silcock Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for the IP user 72.201.218.164 (talk · contribs). On the talk page, the user left the following: "This family is not notable, other than adopting many children and being on Nanny 911. Their website is gone, so updated information is not available anyways. I think that this page should be deleted." I have no opinion as of this time. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Likely to pass GNG from unrelated coverage in People[1], USA Today[2], Telegraph[3], ABC News[4] and host of others. Notability is not temporary, and digging through recent documents shows a divorce and some other coverage in minor spots, the Nanny coverage was another case of notability which together help meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2013 (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.