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

The result was merge and redirect, which was already done by Mark Grant. - Daniel.Bryant 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Grant family[edit]

OK, this is a strange one and needs some thought. I'm nominating this as being basically an indiscriminate collection of information and possible original research. There are tens of thousands of 'Grants'. There is a Clan Grant and there are many descendants of it various chiefs. This article picks out some Grants who became wealthy recently and trances their origins back to some of them. Perhaps it is verifiable (although the references given don't verify it) but it really doesn't belong here. It is just genealogical trivial on one prominent set of Grants. Merging it with Clan Grant would make no sense either - as this not a geneology of the chiefs - and that article can't contain every Grant. Delete -Doc^g 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit tricky. First, normally I don't see the point of an X family article if there aren't at least a couple notable members (e.g. Bush family, Booth family). On the other hand, the Rich List treats the entire descendancy as one holding and they do occasionally receive coverage. Still this isn't direct coverage, usually, it's coverage of the business. I think being in the top 10 wealth ranking in any country is potentially notable, but is Scotland a country for these purposes? Ultimately I think my instinct is to merge with William Grant (businessman) (there's more information on him in this article than that one), and note the present wealth of the family there. If John Grant (current chairman) or someone else is notable individually, they should have an article, but if we don't have more than one notable member there's little point to an overview/navigation article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a merge is that we are left with a redirect from 'Grant family' to one particular, and certainly not the most notable, Grant. I suppose, on reflection, we could simply redirect this, without merge, to Clan Grant?--Doc^g 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about "everyone named Grant", it is an article about the descendants of William Grant, who are rich, and tangentially perhaps related to Clan Grant. William Grant is possibly unquestionably the most notable member. Articles named "Lastname" are for generic information/disambiguation about last names. Articles named "Lastname family" are generally about a particular grouping of people with that name, and should be disambiguated as necessary (e.g. Grant family (distillers). --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe I took your wording the wrong way. We can certainly merge the info and then redirect the article wherever best. As there is also an Irish line of Grants, perhaps Grant per se would be the best redirect.--Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Right now there seem to be three articles which all contain similar information -- Grant family, William Grant (businessman) and William Grant & Sons -- so I think it does need to be rationalised somehow to remove the duplication. Maybe instead of my original idea, moving the historical information to William Grant (businessman) and redirecting Grant family to William Grant & Sons? Mark Grant 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging it with William Grant & Sons as it seems like the information is relevant to that article but I'm not sure they're notable enough for an article of their own. BTW, they're at best very distant relatives, so I don't have any vested interest here :). Mark Grant 22:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I stumble on this while writing about another relative of yours then? Charles Grant (British East India Company)--Doc^g 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, I'm sure the Grants of the world must all be related somehow if you go back far enough :). Mark Grant 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the general sentiment so far. Merge with William Grant (businessman) and redirect. Twixed 10:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a provisional merge of the information from this page into William Grant (businessman), but it could still do with some tidying and references. If someone comes up with a good reason to keep this page then that change can be reverted. Mark Grant 14:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the tidying up on the merge. Given that no-one else has added any opinions lately, should we just redirect this page and call it done? Mark Grant 10:20, 22 February 2007 (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.