Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Railway Building


 * 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. poorly written but notable, AfD nom withdrawn by nominator, voted keep by others (non-admin closure) »  nafSadh did say 19:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Central Railway Building

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Couldn't establish reliable sources to show this is notable Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apparently notable building from an architectural standpoint, discussed in Mahbabul Haque Chittagong guide: tourist, industrial, shipping & business guide Barnarekha 1981, and Nazimuddin Ahmad Buildings of the British Raj in Bangladesh University Press 1986. JulesH (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:JulesH, do you have a full reference for that that you can add to the article? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, those *are* full references. These books were published in India, and many Indian publishers did not use ISBNs until quite recently.  Both are available as limited previews in Google Books, so you can confirm from there that the building is dicussed in them. 87.112.127.183 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep seems to be notable for its architecture, but also as a key public building. It appears on a government preservation list (item 3.5), is discussed in local newspapers (example), and in the books mentioned above. Unfortunately there are not many sources about Bangladesh online, so some library research might be needed to improve the article. -- ELEKHHT 23:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment based on what Jules has found, are you willing to withdraw the nomination ? I almost closed as keep, but now I'm on the fence for relisting.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn still a poor article, not fully verified, but near enough that I'm happy to close this. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (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.