Deletion of McAndrews Estate

Comment: I think the bar is being set too high on this. It's not a slam dunk, but the article and the primary reference listed do indeed meet the guidelines documented directly in the |GNG and related articles. In particular
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I think it's time to put this issue to rest. This topic has now recieved two major pieces of press, from the Journal_News |Journal News and the Patch.com |Peekskill-Cortlandt Patch, the largest print and online publications in this area. Over 70 people showed up at a tour this past weekend - quite a large crowd for a topic whose notability is being questioned. The main criticism here was in regard to 'notability', but again the |GNG states that "Multiple sources are generally expected" and NOT 'always required
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Considering the size of the estate, the money that was associated with this estate historically, the notoriety of Guillaume Reusens that I infer from the court cases that get called up in a Google search on his name, and the estate's current use as a public park, it's a bit surprising that this isn't already established as an open-and-shut case of |notability. No it's not all that surprising -- chalk it up to ecentism|recentism. If the building had been demolished in 1999 instead of 1969, I believe there would be no doubt as to its notability. Additionally, news coverage about the estate has been popping up all over Westchester County (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/BH/20110602/NEWS02/106020399/Cortlandt-estate-shrouded-mystery-site-weekend-tour?odyssey=mod_sectionstories, http://www.lohud.com/article/20110602/NEWS02/106020399/Cortlandt-estate-shrouded-mystery-site-weekend-tour, http://peekskill.patch.com/blog_posts/history-in-our-backyard-the-mcandrews-estate). I predict that additional sources will turn up soon if the article is kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:R)

Comment: I think the point of the article is missing in the deletion debate.  This is a county-owned property that is essentially an undeveloped park.  Whether the |significant enough, and whether the property is listed as a landmark, should also be issues to consider. In this case, it is potentially notable.  Many other such properties have articles, from South County Museum to Old Sturbridge Village.  I'd like to find out more about this property's history and significance before taking a more definitive stand
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)