Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of statues of British royalty in Greater London


 * 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) Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

List of statues of British royalty in Greater London

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An unreferenced list of the London area statues of royals, plus those who don't have a statute. I don't believe this has encyclopedic value; it might be better for a London tourist brochure. Warrah (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was, indeed, unreferenced at the time of the nomination at 13:00 on November 8. Since that time, the article author has been busy adding references, so the defect is being cured.  For the many users who follow royalty, this is of encyclopedic value.  Mandsford (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Mandsford. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review the references - Flickr photographs and personal web sites are being used in lieu of appropriate references described in WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only personal websites are Flickr and My Web. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SouthBankLondon.com and 4London.info are tourist information sites. The St. George Bloomsbury page is a church's web site. These do not meet WP:RS standards. Warrah (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. They are reliable sources. They just aren't third party, which they don't need to be for a list. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Seriously, the dude is improving the article the same day it got nominated, one miracle at a time, please.  Mandsford (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a reasonably limited topic capable of being on WP -- such lists are commonly found in WP, and hence no strong reason for deletion is given. RS questions belong on the article talk page, not here.  And tourist brochures etc. have been found to be sufficiently RS to indicate the existence of something concrete, but are not valid for historical details.  This list does not need to make historical claims about persons, only that they are related to royalty and that a statue is found in the London area. Collect (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs some cleanup and more work, but a list not worth deletion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2009 (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.