Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlfield House
and not just because of the current condition: I would have said "keep" if I'd happened upon it five minutes after nomination.  The promotional content was trimmable without totally ruining the article (no need for a  deletion), and coverage in things published by names such as Wiley should generally be considered sufficient.  Put this together with extensive 19th-century coverage of all things noble (i.e. there's going to be plenty of documentation on the house in publications about the owners), and you had something clearly notable at the time of nomination
— User:Nyttend, 15:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:TNT (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over)