Deletion of Government House, Wellington

Comment: Personally, I'd like to  . Especially when it is applied like this. The copyvio detector is not convincing, titles, location names and simple wording are always going to be repeated like this and aren't copyrighted material anyway. The only section I can see clearly copypasted was about Lord Plunkett. Removing the leading paragraph was ridiculous . . . seriously, there are only so many ways to say that in the first place that its bordering on uncopyrightable, and it would've taken the remover two seconds to paraphrase anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:TNT)

Comment: The building is indisputably notable, and I oppose having no article about the building, even briefly. The current poor state of the article is due to removing large chunks of text without substituting brief cited paraphrases. The copyvio detector is unconvincing. Of course, there are repetitions of government titles and designations. That does not violate copyright.  is an essay which I find unpersuasive in this case. We are not talking about a promotional article about a new pop "star" or a YouTuber. This is a highly notable topic, and the article should be improved through normal editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:BLOWITUP)