Talk:Griggs House

Proposed merge with The Blair Witch Project
Articles for deletion/Griggs House was closed with a consensus of keeping the article, reasoning that its notable as an independent topic only because the Maryland Historical Trust said so, even though the participants did nothing to show any independent, significant coverage of the house in sources other than the primary source by the Historical Trust. While I'm definitely not considering deletion now given this and the coverage of the house in relation to the film, the size and amount of possible information of the house is so little that I think it could fit just find in the film article. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 09:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Are ye daft m8? 63.231.136.18 (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're asking if I'm deaf, no, I am actually making a valid argument here. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 08:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is short, yes, and unlikely to grow, but I'd rather leave it like that, because I it would not fit into the film article. The material currently in this article would present WP:TOOMUCH for the film, and merging would hamper categorization and navigation (it does not make sense to categorize the film under "Houses completed in 1800" or "Maryland landmarks"). No such user (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a good argument whatsoever. Judging by what little information this page has given us so far, at least redirecting the page into the article about the film would definitely not be WP:TOOMUCH. I can see what you were going for with you saying "merging would hamper categorization and navigation", but this doesn't automatically excuse the house's lack of notability. I'm sorry, but if a subject has too little information from reliable sources, it should be at least mentioned in a related article, simple as that. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Redirection is for similar articles... You would need to create a section in the film article, with the content of this article... That's too much for a film article. The better thing to do is for this article to continue to exist on its own... This article has a link to the film article, and the film article may have a link to this article. I have included a link to this article in the navbar of the blair witch project (under related articles), and have included the navbar in this article. That is sufficient.
 * For example, the The Amityville Horror (1979 film) article has a link to 112 Ocean Avenue (the fact that the latter is a redirection is another matter, different than this one in this talk page). In this example, the film and address are separated articles. 95.95.71.253 (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and more erroneous arguing of just "Too much for film article" without giving good reasoning, even though this article is only four paragraphs and nine sentences, most of them short, long. Do you wanna know why 112 Ocean Avenue can't have its own page? there's not enough coverage about it in reliable sources to have its own article, so it should have a section or at least a paragraph in the article therefore. The same thing goes for the article about the Griggs House. Seriously, can you people please read WP:NOTINHERIT and understand why your arguments are so paper thin? editorEهեইдအ😎 21:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: if the griggs house article has no signifincance, then just let it go, no need for it to be merged with the blair witch project! period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.11.134.77 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What you said here does not contribute to the discussion in any way. The only significance this film had was in relation to the Blair Witch Project. If the house had "no signifincance" whatsoever, that's only more of a reason for someone to delete the article from the encyclopedia and not "let it go". editorEهեইдအ😎 02:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 196.11.134.77. The article should not be merged into the Blair Witch Project article. It should either remain a self-standing article or be deleted, but under no circumstances be merged. I vote for it to remain. -rayukk &#124; talk 20:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has been tagged for merger for seven months and the motion is universally opposed. Time to remove tag. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)