Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Bhavan (Assam)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 08:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Raj Bhavan (Assam)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since December 2015. The single source in the article does not work with https, and the http version redirects to http://www.assam.gov.in/. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 20:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: No independent third party reviews that fail GNG. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 02:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * you're aware this is a building and not a person, right? Am I missing something as to why POLITICIAN would apply? I'm leaning weak keep right now as the official residence of a notable office, but haven't quite made up my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was person. Now, you see I removed POLITICIAN part. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 23:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as the official residence of a governor of an Indian state. Does it suck now? Sure, but I believe that official residences of the governors of states are notable. This also highly suggests that if enough digging is done it could meet GNG both with physical, online, and non-English sources. GNG does not require that the sources be present in the article, simply that they exist, and as an official residence its likely that there are more sources in libraries, etc. discussing its cultural significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Such official residences are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes I think it's a reasonable assumption that all such official residences of gov't leaders/heads of state have some kind of protected or cultural status that would meet criterion 1 in WP:GEOFEAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2017 (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.