Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashcombe House

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashcombe House[edit]

It's OK to have an article about a museum and the like, but an article about Madonna and Guy Ritchie's House? Is it really worth the time? It's never going to become anything more than a stub. And the next edit it will receive will probably be when the sell it. ^KILO-_LIMA 23:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The very definition of nn. Fan1967 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC) After the rewrite, I'll say Weak Keep. Fan1967 01:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Madonna. Unless the house is notable by being associated with Cecil Beaton, I can't see any reason for it to have its own article stub. (aeropagitica) 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I love a challenge :) Have a look at the article now. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Medium Keep (due credit to Grutness). Notable house. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after Gruntness' work. Any reference for the text? Pavel Vozenilek 01:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done to Grutness for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added an external link. 62.31.55.223 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Old manor house, linked to several notable people. Good rewrite. u p p l a n d 05:32, 26 February 2006 (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.