Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grange Estate


 * 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. SynergeticMaggot 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Grange Estate
No assertion of notability -Nv8200p talk 01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the notability was washed away with the copyvio text. I have tried to restore some semblance of notability to the article. Hopefully others will take up this task. I'm guessing that since this was 18th century construction, not much more of note will be found on the Internet. It will take some print research to flesh this out more. Erechtheus 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I say keep it, the article sounds intreasting it just needs someone who is willing to add onto it. It is a stub afterall. Popcorn2008 02:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008
 * User has made several edits, but note that all of them have occurred today. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that I forgot to add my signiture at the end of my comment. Im a new user, I apolgize for this did it on a few other posts above as well. Popcorn2008 02:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008
 * Delete, nn house. "George Washington dined here" is not a valid notability criterion.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote, which was prejudiced by the hoaxing of History21 and his coterie of meat/sockpuppets. Keep, on the national registry is good enough for me.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'll give it a change. A reasonable level of notability is asserted and it appears to be a tourist attraction (not that all tourist attractions are notable). --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jo. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main structure is on the National Register of Historic Places (1976), should be automatically notable for that. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The National Register entry should give some additional information.  As well, there would be some information on John Ross.  (By the way, I believe you know him as Betsy's husband.)  It's not a good claim made in the article, but enough is there to warrant a keep and hope.  Geogre 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This John Ross is not the same as Betsy's husband. You can tell because this one died in 1800 whereas her husband died in 1776. Erechtheus 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * D'oh! And I'm sure it's not the John Ross who was a Creek Indian leader/traitor/politician.  I shoulda checked.  Geogre 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I just added a link to John Ross's brief bio at famousamericans.net ; evidently, he was quite a patriot, having lost £20,000 he spent on supplies for the Revol. Army which Congress never reimbursed him for. He was also chummy with Washington, Franklin, Lafayette, and Robt. Morris, some of whom visited him here. (Arguably, Ross deserves his own article; but this is a different John Ross from Betsy's husband, who was killed in 1776.) Also, the original part of the structure dates to 1700! So historically, I think this subject is more significant than comparable articles on Nitre Hall and Knowlton Mansion (tho the latter is notable architecturally).--BillFlis 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Ruaraidh-dobson 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep being on The National Registery for historic places is very notable where I live. You have to fulfill certain criteria to get on it.   LemonIce 12:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per BillFlis
 * More interesting stuff on Ross here, correspondence with B. Franklin's grandson during the Revolution. I really think we need an article on him. I'll get working!--BillFlis 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable and Wiki-worthy. John Ross residence, frequented by Washington, on National Register, from 1700. What on earth beyond this could be required???Edison 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - was watching this because of the Hoaxing that Zoe refers to - agree with Zoe that national register is enough. -- Trödel 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per historic value and national register listing. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:11, 2 August 2006 (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.