Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Longest streets in London
Proposed for deletion by with the rationale "no sources, primary research must be repeated to verify, inherently and irretrievably WP:NOR, until such time as some reputable source publishes such a list, which we probably wouldn't be able to include anyway for legal reasons", also a case is made on the talk page. Kappa 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article provides the best answer it can to an encyclopedic question, determining the length of a road from a map is no more original research than determining the length of a river in the same way. Kappa 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Bzzzt, straw man, and misleading too. Measuring the river on the map is also OR.  Of course, other people have already measured the lengths of rivers, and published the results, so we don't even have to do the measurement in te first place.  Also, street names are entirely arbitrary, so being the longest in London isn't in any way notable, particularly as some continuous routes may have more than one street name.  Sorry, but there's nothing anywhere which mandates that we need to be the repository of all information ever.  This list so fails WP:NOR and WP:V, and therefore also WP:NOT.  If this is the best we can do, it simply boils down to te fact that in this case (as in so many others) the best we have isn't good enough.  This solution is no more acceptable than simply copying a chunk out of someone's research paper because we don't know anything about the subject.  If nobody else has published the lengths of these streets, neither can we.  I urge any closing admin to bear this in mind before considering if this is simply "interesting".   07:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Royal Blue 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kappa . -- Mithent 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No reason to delete (a.k.a. keep) There are many list articles on Wikipedia. In fact, there is a whole article devoted to listing lists. -- Jay  (Reply)  00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. Besides, failing to meet no fewer than three of our most important content policies and blasting through the Five Pillars clearly isn't a reason to delete ...
 * I am interested to see these examples of list article. Are they list of non-notable entries? If such lists are acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I will have to adjust one of my reasons for delete accordingly. -Lumière 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per Kappa. These are facts that can be determined from information in the public domain, and independently verified (though WP is not for original research) by following a route with a sufficient measuring method.  A simple sort by "longest" isn't original research, and provides information which some people clearly find interesting.  On the other hand, WP:NOT an almanac or indiscriminate collection of facts and trivia.  "Longest streets in London" is awfully weak in WP:Importance, and I really don't want to see hundreds of inconvenient-to-verify, easy-to-vandalize "Longest streets in Foo City" lists.  Yes, London streets have more history and more references in literature than almost any other city's roads; but they're noted for other things than their length.  Barno 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would urge a change of stance, as UK mapping data is in the main not in the public domain, and verification requires repeating the measurement process, therefore it cannot be independently verified.
 * Despite tone of anonymous editor in other comments, I'm changing to no vote (WP:V in question pending a more specific source). Also would like to hear more (specific, not generalizations with outs such as "in the main") about the legal status of mapping data in general (as compared to some company's proprietary database built from national surveys, published satellite photos, but also their own added-value information or organization).  Barno 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite as Notable streets in London and remove long non-notable streets Ruby 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Longest notable streets in London? No, if this is kept at all, the redlinked streets should either be created (if there is some real notability for the street) or de-linked into plaintext.  I can't imagine any neighborhood does tourism promotions "Sixteenth Longest Street in London!!"  Is even the longest one widely noted for that fact?  Barno 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to rename. Any entry in a list must be notable. We also don't say List of notable musicians/mathematicians/politicians. We only include the notable ones. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as is. Being among the 50 longest named streets in London is notable in itself. Not notable enough for separate articles in most cases, though, so remove the redlinks as per Barno. Grutness...wha?  01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Street names are arbitrary, and not an indication of status, thus a road cannot be notable for the length with which it runs with a given name.
 * Keep per Kappa. This is borderline as to notability but, y'know, it's fun and sort of inherently English.  Why not.  --Lockley 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and probably a few more too.
 * Keep, this is a good list, interesting. --Ter e nce Ong 05:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Interesting" is not a valid inclusion criterion. "Verifiable", however, is a valid inclusion criterion (required, in fact), but this list doesn't meet that.  In essence, until someone publishes a list in a reputable source, it is merely speculating at what the longest streets in Londin might be.
 * I think you're all missing the point here. Original research, people.  Kappa's statement that this might belong here is provably false, since the list is indisputably original research (go on, just try finding some circumstance which makes this not OR).  The one and only way of obtaining this data at the moment is to do the measurements yourself, and the one and only way of verifying this data is to repeat the same measurement process.  Thus, the article is unavoidably OR, and cannot be verified independently of the original data.
 * Keep. Notwithstanding the anon's argument above, I don't see any OR here. In fact, if there is one thing that should be fairly easy to list it's street length. Although instead of measuring it myself, as suggested above, I'd depend on an established reference such as . Furthermore, if this anon wants to root out some more OR he might want to start tagging List of rivers by length, List of tallest buildings and structures by country, List of tallest churches, List of longest novels, List of lightest stars, List of highest mountains- to name a few. I mean who measured that stuff anyway?-- JJay 08:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your vote is evidently misinformed, because your reasoning is patently false (no offence). If you don't see any OR, it is either because you don't know what OR is, or it is because you're deliberately ignoring it.  Your suggestion of using the A-Z is still OR.  Wikipedia thrives on source-based research, but excludes original research.  To summarise WP:NOR, OR is any research that introduces new information, SBR is any research that uses only existing information, though you are allowed to present this information in a different way - what's important is that nothing is done to the information.  For the list of rivers, we are taking the already widely-published figures for various rivers, and arranging them by length.  We're doing nothing new (Google for Nile km and you'll see what I mean).  For the list of London streets, the data is generated by measuring using maps, or by physically measuring the route itself.  In either case, we get raw data that we didn't know before - this is new information, therefore it is original research.  Follow?  What matters is not whether or not it has been measured, but who measured it and who published it.  Since it appears that Wikipedia is the first to publish the fact that Western Avenue is 11.8 miles long to the M25, this is OR.  The fact that this page is OR is not even up for debate, as it is indisputable fact.  One deciding factor is its value to Wikipedia weighed against this fact.  It is my opinion that, because nobody has WP:CITEd WP:RS (forgetting for a moment that this being WP:NOR means that no WP:RS exist), and that it can't be WP:V, the very little value this list provides is not worth setting the dangerous precedent of essentially allowing OR into Wikipedia.
 * I am offended. Your continued badgering is becoming old information. Stop hiding behind your IP to make attacks, Change your tone and get a user page. Follow? -- JJay 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Part of the whole process of discussion and argument (remember, AfD is a discussion, not a vote) is to examine and attack your opponent's position. I am not attacking your character, but your position that it's not OR when the fact is that it clearly is OR.  Read the article, read the talk page, then re-read the arguments for deletion.  Re-read WP:OR if necessary.  The fact (for it is a fact) is that this list is OR, and anyone who cannot already see why is missing something big somewhere along the line, probably a misunderstanding of what OR actually is.  Of course, you could just stop hiding behind your username to make attacks, and actually explain why you think this is not OR, so we can see at what point our opinions diverge (discussion, not vote, remember?).  02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Re-read the part above about old information, your tone and badgering. Then re-read Articles for deletion particularly point V and VI under AfD etiquette. The fact (for it is a fact) that you have an opinion about this article was noted with your original statement at the top of the page. There is no reason to keep repeating your position. -- JJay 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and finally mocking the format of a previous comment is WP:POINT. Please retract.  03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I cite one wikipedia page and that's how you react? You have called me "misinformed" with "patently false" reasoning and accused me of "deliberately ignoring" policy. You cite 10 wikipedia pages- itself a violation of NPA, AGF and CIV as far as I'm concerned- and claim I'm trying to make a point. The only point I'm trying to make is to get you to tone down your rhetoric. If this hasn't already been clear, I am not interested in being lectured by you or in debating you. Your opinion has been noted. -- JJay 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but find sources from which the evidence accrues. An excellent list but it needs to have sourcing.  We can't  require all other articles to have sources and not require this one.  MLA 09:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no sources. This data simply does not exist in the UK in any form that Wikipedia could use.  That it might be a good list does not change the fact that it is pure OR.
 * The data could exist - where data is taken from maps then those maps exist and are sources - they should be quoted. MLA 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It could, but it doesn't. There is no map or document which shows the length of these streets.  For what must be the third time already, no source exists to be cited.  This has clearly involved using the maps to produce new primary data.  Get it into your head that THERE ARE NO SOURCES FOR THIS DATA.  Whatever maps were used did not contain this data, someone had to take measurements using the maps.  Data exists such that these numbers could be calculated or measured, but it doesn't get you all the way to knowing Western Avenue is 11.3mi long to the Greater London border without doing things which brings you into WP:OR.  Remember, Wikipedia is about producing a reliable secondary source, and this is primary data.  How many times do I have to point out that this data is original, and therefore "keep" is not a valid option regardless of who suggests it?
 * While we're at it, do some of those taking part in the discussion here not even realise that by even suggesting the possibility of keeping this article, you're smashing through no fewer than three of the Five Pillars?
 * Keep per Kappa. S iva1979 Talk to me  11:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, Kappa's statement is both flawed and factually inaccurate. That, and we can't keep OR.  I am shocked and appalled that people are seriously suggesting we keep material which has been proved beyond dispute to violate three of our central content policies, and knock out three of the Five Pillars.
 * Which three? It seemed to me that it is consistent with all of them. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this list is not encyclopedia material (particularly due to the OR). 2: Where are our sources? (clearly not the maps, since the numbers we're looking for aren't there).  3: Wikipedia is free content.  OS licence terms may have been breached since the OS limits this data to personal use, and A-Z restricts commercial use.  Until an English solicitor has reviewed all the facts carefully and given us the all-clear, we should not assume that this list is copyleft-safe.  09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * that all seems to be a question of interpretation, not smashing through any rules. This is pretty lighthearted information to cause such a serious debate, but no reason why an encyclopedia should not be amusing as well as informative. Absolutely no reason why this information should not be presented in a neutral way, but again I don't see anyone actually seriously challenging the accuracy of this information, so it becomes a bit absurd to demand sources. As to copyright, it is not clear that this is copyrighteable information, since the same information exists in many different works. Sandpiper 01:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete until decent sources can be used for research, which would also remove the ridiculous self references currently on the page. JPD (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps the editor who feels strongly enough to backchat every vote on this page (presumably "82.15.28.195") should learn how to sign his/her comments? Looks dumb and harms the credibility of your keep campaign. Also, it would appear that the measly technicalities you're relying on to get this page deleted are pretty shaky. I personally think every redlink needs to be deleted immediately and the info is pretty useless but I'm not bothered about OR and to say that pillars are being smashed isn't accurate. If you look at the edit histories of some who have voted here you'll see plenty of editors who know what WP:NOR, WP:V etc. are all about and don't have a problem. My advice is to find a new pet peeve.  ++D e iz  12:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In defense of 82.15.28.195 I think the OR concern is arguably a legitimate one, not a "measly technicality", but also not a clear-cut case. I believe it is possible for reasonable people to differ in this case, although not everyone seems to agree... Kappa 13:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well sure, people can have legitimate viewpoints on either side of a debate, that's why this page exists. That comment is a little out of step with your vote at the top of the page though, which seems like an assertion that there is no OR issue here. Of course, thats just my interpretation...  ++D e iz  14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's turn this discussion on its head. Assume for the moment that there is no OR issue here.  If this were not OR, there would already be a list somewhere in a credible and reputable publication stating literally the lengths of the various streets in London.  Reputable sources for this would include OSGB, various map publishers, and perhaps academic research.  A trawl of OSGB turns up no such list.  Google for the top five on the list as it stands produces only three pages of entries, including some lists of streets by name, none of which contain lengths.  There are some documents related to TfL describing traffic schemes, but nothing giving the total lengths of all of these.  Restricting the search to .ac.uk yields no results.  Thus, there is no list, and as such the statement that the list is not OR cannot be true.  Add in the fact that the talk page actually contains the methodology and confirms that Wikipedians have been applying it, which as stated is clearly aimed to produce new primary data; this reinforces the fact that it is undisputably OR.  The clinching factor in deciding "Is this or is this not OR?" is this: according to the map sources, what are the N longest streets in London?  If they can't tell you, then they're not the real source of this information.  When you have taken the measurement from the map and recorded it somewhere, the map is not the source of that data, your records are.  As for this: "Perhaps the editor who feels strongly enough to backchat every vote on this page ...", perhaps Deiz needs reminding that AfD is not a vote, but discussion.  WP:AGF - what you might perceive as "back-chatting the votes" (TINAV), is actually engaging the "voters" (TINAV) in the discussion about their reasoning, particularly to establish what they think, beyond "per X", to see what we agree on, where we differ, and where our views diverge.  03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment re: nominator: The user had only some 55 edits to Wikipedia at the time of his latest edit to this afd - of which nine edits were here and a handful of others were on other AFDs. Earliest edit was two days ago, yet we're having policy and the "five pillars" quoted at us. Sounds a little suss to me... Grutness...wha?  23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check the talk page, it's someone who gave up their user page, rather than a new user. Kappa 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a book of records. Bobby1011 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting one, but it does not figure in What Wikipedia is not or did I miss something?
 * Delete. Unless there is a reliable source for the data it is unacceptable to include the information. Under the verifiability policy I could legitimately remove all material from the article that doesn't have a valid source. I won't however advocate that just yet in order to avoid being disruptive. - Taxman Talk 16:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Google™ --Avi 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis is one of the clearest violations of WP:NOR I can think of right now. If it could be sourced, then the idea itself is probably worthy of an article. However, right now, it's not worth keeping.
 * Delete unless the article lists its source(s) (i.e. WP:RS and WP:V). There is also the problem as to what "London" means: the article states "London" extends out to the M25 motorway, which is not Greater London (the region governed by the Greater London Authority). Sliggy 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete list of arbitrary geographical features in arbitrary city meeting arbitrary criteria, without reliable sources. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this fails numerous Wikipedia policies especially verifiability. --Coolcaesar 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This would appear to be original research and therefore unverifiable. RicDod 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Crystal-clear violation of WP:NOR, which is firm policy.  When someone else reputable publishes this list, it can come back with a citation to the source.  To be clear; measuring off a map is original research; interpreting such a measurement as representing one of the 100th longest streets in London is original research.  These actions fall outside the bounds of editorialization; they are original research.   ikkyu2  ( talk ) 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, although I agree with points of anonymous who has been bespattering this page, I would urge him not to be a dick. ikkyu2  ( talk ) 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * KeepJcuk 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Point of interest about a far from "arbitary" choice of city. Why do you think this has been done for London, but not for Chichester? Merchbow 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because someone with too much time on their hands got bored? *shrug* 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG. Stifle 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete . This is an exceedingly esoteric topic, and could lead to a proliferation of similar topics for other cities, unless long roads in London have some other special interest such as being mentioned in literature or the news. Although it is clear original research, they're not putting any special interpretation or point of view on the data, so it's really more like data gathering. I'm sticking with delete only because, unlike a proof of a simple mathematical theorem, this is impossible to verify without access to the streets themselves. Deco 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote to Weak keep on the basis that this information was derived from a map of London and could be easily verified by casual measuring of any other similar map of London, artifacts which are widely available even though the streets themselves are not. Deco 06:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not verification has to be independent of the original source material, or it's not verifying the facts stated. In any case, where on the A-Z of London does it say that Western Avenue is between 11-12mi long? 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are several elements of OR here. One is there had to be decisions made on starting points for the streets. How to handle curved streets. What was the algorithm used to verify the measurements on the map are correct? How were they measured at all. Having none of this available is exactly why we have a policy against original research. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, if it helps clear consciences slightly, the data on the page is entirely new and previously unpublished. Some may also want to be aware of a potential issue with copyright.  The list itself may not be copyrightable, however, this does not mean that they can be freely generated from copyrighted sources against the licence conditions.  I've made a longer note of this on the pump.  Key point being that even if your results cannot be subject to copyright, you still need to make sure you're allowed to obtain your results in the first place.  Unlike many other countries, the work of government agencies in the UK is not PD.  With some further inspection, it seems that the restrictions on things such as [A-Z maps include "For private, non-commercial or educational use only" which I believe means we can't use them, or any original research work directly derived from them (since one of the principles of free-content is "commercial use allowed too")  01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't personally believe it's reasonable to refer to a list of distances calculated from a map as a "derivative work" - there is no copyright issue here. Don't waste your time arguing this point, there's better deletion reasons to focus on. Deco 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you have two options. Either it's derived from the map, in which case OS copyright policy means we can't include it, or it's original, in which case it falls foul of WP:NOR.  No third way here, I'm afraid.  Either way, keeping this will be a somewhat dangerous, since it would involve blatantly disregarding the unchangeable and unignorable rules, namely that of copyleft-safety, and original research. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * delete clear-cut original research: there is no reasons to believe that the author's measurements are correct. mikka (t) 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Applying such a high standard of OR would invalidate many, many articles here on Wikpedia. It comes down to one pillar, verifiability. Can this information be verified? Yes. Would the person who feels so strongly about this they feel compelled to make repeated comments please consider signing using ~ ? It's not one of the pillars, but it is a common courtesy. Turnstep 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it's a bedrock and very important policy. All articles need to meet it. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is an aspiration. Most wiki articles are not verified and absolutely should not be deleted on that basis. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that without actual numerical data, independent verification of this list would be impossible. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can this information be verified? Well, yes and no. If you take any item on the list, e.g. "10) 3.60 miles: Purley Way" This comprises of two pieces of information. One, Purley Way is 3.6 miles long, and Two) Purley Way is the tenth longest street in London. Item one can be checked from the map, although that has accuracy issues &mdash; if I reference the original source given and get a different answer to that published, can you truly say that it's a verifable fact? Item two is not verifable, to verify it was item 10, I would have to measure every street, and hope that I hadn't missed the same streets as the original author. That to me, is research, so the fact that the original editor is doing the same thing, looks clearly against WP:NOR to me. So, in summary, street lengths itself is iffy (I'd not remove that data is it was in an article about a street, for example), but ordering them is original research. Since this article is focused on the ordering, I'm afraid it really should go MartinRe 10:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article would be improved (and should be given the chance to improve) by excluding guesses and "measured by ... car" and referencing the maps used (either generally or individually by street. To me, measuring the length of a street on a map is no more OR than reading words in a book. Thincat 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm with Turnstep; the original research prohibition has its limits and needs to be flexible. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No actually it's firm policy. You can't set it aside just because it's convenient. Please spend some time understanding the relevant policies before voting. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because someone disagrees with your view doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the relevant policies. Reasonable people may interpret borderline cases differently. So get off your high horse and show some respect for differing viewpoints. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I replied to your message on my talk page, I'm sorry if I offended you. It's not because you don't agree with me that I said you don't understand the policy. It's because your statement is directly at odds with the policy. Turnstep's was even farther out, and you said you agreed with his statements. - Taxman Talk 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page, so I'll stick to the subject at hand here. For example, what part of What is excluded? is violated here? I'm not proposing that we waive NOR willy-nilly, but that we recognize that some types of content lie on the border of NOR (for example, plot summaries for books or films). If the street lengths in this article come from measurements off a map (and if so, let's get the cite for that map), then is that original research, or just reproduction of published data, since the map is published and the street lengths are on the map in a non-numeric form? I can see both sides to that argument. I take the view that if the map is published, then the measurements are not original research, and they're verifiable. If the article contains measurements made by some guy with a tape measure or a really long piece of string, then the article still stays but needs a verify tag. Deletion isn't a good solution in either case. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that any policy requires interpretation, which is perhaps what some mean by "needs to be flexible", but we must do the necessary to correctly interpret it.  -Lumière 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. See my comment below. I see no problem with OR because it is one of the objective of a map to allow users to find distances. Some maps have distances written on them. Of course a published map, ideally with written distances, should be provided as a reference. However, the most serious problem is notability. Just being "interesting" does not make it notable.  Lumière 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the only way for a reader to check the veracity of the claims is to do the measurements himself, it's a violation of WP:NOR. If on the other hand there are maps that note the length of these streets, those should be cited as sources, and they haven't been, making the article a violation of WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sorry, but to claim that a map of roads does not contain accurate information as to the exact length of each is ridiculous. Any map which does not contain that information is pretty worthless. This argument is entirely analogous to a table published in French, which someone translates into English and still cites as a source. Just because some people are unable to read distances off maps, just as some people are unable to read words out of a book, does not condemn us all to map dyslexia. Locating visual facts on a map sheet is no different to locating particular sentences in a book and including them in a history article. In fact, it might be rather easier to see which is the longest road than to find a particular mention of something. The only thing which writers of an encyclopedia do is collate information. This requires people to organise data and present it in a way which is useful to readers. If editors are not permitted to do that then someone might just as well pull the plug on all the wiki servers right now, and save the elctricity. Sandpiper 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a few components of original research in reading street lengths off of a map, and an additional one in trying to list the longest streets in a given area. There are a number of problems to contend with that make the issue much different from reading text. For one, what measurement tool is used? If a ruler by hand, then the scale of the map greatly influences the answer that will be had from the measurement, but so does the ruler used. Different measuring tools will come up with different answers for the length . How is that accounted for in the results reported? Some rulers have greater accuracy than others, even the thickness of the lines on the ruler will affect the result. How are curved streets handled? Are they considered at all? The choice of what to consider as one street is a problem. Where does the measurement stop if the street changes names? What precision is to be reported in the answers and how did one arrive at that confidence level?  If the map is electronic, what tools are used to measure the lines, and how does the algorithm work? All of these items are judgement calls that are innapropriate original research. And no, ignore all rules cannot set aside any of the major content policies. You can't have a POV article just because you want to ignore the NPOV policy, and no "consensus" can do that. - Taxman Talk 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The difficulties you suggest in translating the data off the map are really not quantitatively different from the difficulties anyone faces when trying to prepare an article from different sources. It is my experience that different sources disagree with each other, and editorial judgement is needed to choose which versions to include in an article. I have also seen the result of someone who plainly does not understand a source then trying to write an article. Articles do not get scrapped because people make mistakes interpreting, they get corrected. Normally when editors have a difference of opinion over content, they fight it out and a consensus on the correct interpretation is reached. Just so here, though I have yet to see any real suggestion that people are arguing the factual content is incorrect. I am sure there are many wiki editors who have the source material on their own bookcase and the necessary ability to read a map to check for themselves that information here is correct. I regard the existence of such an accessible method of checking as making this article very much more readily verifiably than many others which might have a long bibliography which is however not immediately to hand. I remain of the view that a strict interpretation of NOR as suggested by some people would mean that this encyclopedia should totally be deleted. It is not possible to create a synthesis of data without doing original work. That is why such a synthesis is specifically permitted, indeed last time I read it, was mandatory.
 * As to major policies. A perceived violation of a policy is not grounds for deletion of an article. It is merely grounds for initiating a debate over whether such an article should be deleted. This is an important distinction. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for being a violation of WP:NOR. Tuf-Kat 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. MartinRe sums up the main problems nicely. Verifiability should be, at least, reasonable, and having to reproduce the original data from scratch in order to verify claims is most definitely NOT reasonable. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Calling the determination of the length of a street from a map for "origianal research" is stretching it a bit. I mean, if the map is available, the work can be checked, and hence such info can be made verifiable. London is a large city, and information on the longest roads is alright. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To check the length of any street, you can check the map for that street and measure it. That is bordering between OR and verifable due to accuracy in remeasuring, but could be seen both ways. However, to check that street is the 10th longest, you have to measure every street in London, hope you were accurate, and hope you didn't miss any. So, to verify fully any one item in that list, you have to do everything again. The latter problem, to me anyway, is what make this not count as verifiable. MartinRe 09:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing my vote (yet), but that's the best pro-Delete argument I've seen. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found this one not so convincing because it relies on the amount of processing and expertise required. I think that we should expect that in some cases a lot of expertise and processing is needed to understand how the sourced information is supported by the source. I find the argument of Neigel von Teighen given below much more convincing and decisive, unless we cite a map that provides all required information. -Lumière 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is not serous: it's a leave an open gate for POV (e.g. when a street changes its name in a certain point, it is the same street or a new begins? If a street begins a private property and then becomes a public way, where do you start measuring?) and for OR. --Neigel von Teighen 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is another important issue. Where are the beginning and the end of a street often cannot be determined from the map irrespectively of the amount of processing allowed. A formal criteria could be stated in the article, but the information required by the criteria (such as what is private or public) might not be available. This alone is a strong case for original research: the sourced information is not uniquely determined by the source.  -Lumière 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Question. Do we actually know what the map in question is? Is it a single map? (I think it should be, or it has zero verifiability.) Is anyone sure that the data here comes from a specific map? I'm troubled by the lack of sourcing on the page, but that in and of itself isn't cause for a delete vote. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's somewhat beside the point. If you can't point at the source showing the information you need, it's not the source of the information.  In this case, you can't point at a London A-Z or OS Landrangers of the area that states categorically the length of Oxford Street.  We've heard plenty of reasons why this is OR, but what I (and others) would desperately like to hear before some admin mistakenly closes this as a "keep" (IIRC, they're supposed to weight the reasons, not the votes) is the reasons why people think it's not OR, in relation to the list itself (i.e. not excuses such as "if this is, then everything else is").  Particularly, why they believe that it's not the measurement that makes it OR. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. What a strange debate. It seems sooooooo obvious to me that a map is a published source capable of verifying the length of a feature marked on it, and that using that information is not original research. I'm astonished other users feel differently. AndyJones 11:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: My preferred reasons for delete delete are
 * The required information is not on any cited map: where a street begins and ends, for example when the street changes name, cannot be found on the map. Often one would need to physically go on the site or rely on local non-published knowledge.
 * It's either a list of non notable entries (and thus against What Wikipedia is Not and possibly against copyright policy ) or, if you think it is more than that, it is against No original Research.
 * Reasons for delete that I don't like:
 * It's difficult to measure with good accuracy.
 * It's a complicated process to list all streets and order them.
 * I don't like these reasons because they assume that it must be simple for anyone to see that a sourced information is supported by the sources, which is not a policy requirement. For example, translation from German to English is not against NOR. Also, to see that a scientific statement is well supported by scientific sources might require a level of expertise that only a few expert-editors have. -Lumière 11:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please not bold your second delete here. Thanks. -- JJay 12:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:. While my vote is still at delete (not bolded, JJAy :) I want to mention that I don't think it is appropiate to remove the guts of an article &mdash; basically deleting it &mdash; while it is still under offical discussion for deletion. (I haven't reverted the removal, as if the result is keep, it will be done anyway, and if the result is delete, it would be pointless.) I don't see anything explicitly forbidding it in the Deletion policy, but the afd notice does ask people not to blank the article, and taking the majority of the text is going against the spirit, if not the letter of that policy. MartinRe 13:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, since its not really clear where I should put this point which has cropped up repeatedly above: no source of information is exact. Tables of scientific values all have limits to their accuracy. Arguing that a map is not a suitable source because of the inherent inaccuracy of obtaining data from it is not a helpful way to decide this point. All it means is that there is a limit on the accuracy of the data. Again, if all data subject to errors was deleted, there would be none left on wiki. A more interesting question is whether this use of the maps violates the copyright of the originators. I am sure that the aim of the map makers copyright conditions is to prevent other people making copies of their maps, which is certainly not what is happening here. Also, if I pick up a text book and use information tabulated in it, then I would not expect to be taken to task by the authors for using that information without permission. As I understand it, the information content is not copyright, only the actual presentation of it? What is presented here is only exerpts from the total of information, and is not unique information as many companies have independently gathered the same information.Sandpiper 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. Would an article that simply list all the streets in London with their length, assuming that everything is verifiable, be acceptable in Wikipedia? This question is not about the verifiability issue, but about What Wikipedpia is not (this section in particular). One of the comments above says that entries in a list must be notable. This kind of answers my question, but which part of WP policy says that? -Lumière 02:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lumiere, i don't think it helps this debate that you go through and change things which you have written and others have already responded to. It makes their responses nonsense, which is unfair, and retrospectively does not allow them to respond to your changed comments, which is also unfair. Please stop doing it. I can see that you have corrected your own arguments where you have found them to be mistaken, but instead of changing them, just continue by stating your changed position.


 * I would interpret noteablity as being a relative as well as absolute term. it means what is worth including, as well as what is widely accepted (as distinct from what is widely refuted) The wikipage you cite suggests that a sense of proportion is needed. So a complete list of all street lengths in London would be unacceptable, but a list of noteably long ones would be includeable. On the other hand, wiki is not paper, which is say it does not have the same space constraints as a conventional encyclopedia. In a paper volume there is a real sense that if one article goes in, another must come out. That does not apply here. So wiki can afford to include articles on relatively minor topics. Wiki resources are creaking at maintaining a free service, but I think the issue is numbers of people wanting to read it, not the still relatively small volume of information which makes up the encyclopedia. Sandpiper 10:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, with regard to your first paragraph, nobody as far as could see had made any reference to the comment that I deleted. Really, I felt that it was somehow totally ignored. I will check again, and if I see that some had made some reference to this comment I will be happy to put it back. I think I respected the spirit of the guideline which says that we should not modified our own text in a talk page if it was superceded. IMO, if nobody replies or makes reference to it, it is not superceded. -Lumière 13:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete clear violation of WP:OR. &mdash; ciphergoth 13:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a source is cited with this information, it's original research. --W.marsh 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this could change and not be true. Who would know? FloNight 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A suggestion. We could create a sub-page in which pro-delete and neutral editors would agree on the main reasons for delete, the best way to formulate them, etc. and a new section below in which these reasons will be copied and all editors could comment on them and try to obtain a consensus about whether or not these reasons are valid. If we succeed to have a consensus on only one reason for delete, then the article should be deleted. If, for every proposed reason for delete, we obtain a consensus that the reason is not valid, then we will keep the article.  Otherwise, I guess that we will continue to seek a consensus until the decision will be taken by whoever is in charge. My feeling is that only a few main reasons for delete will be proposed, and this will focus the discussions around them instead on around individual votes or comments. I know that I am not very well known, and already I am attacked as a troll, spammer, disruptive, etc. by a few (and also for making many modifications to my own comments, but this one is well deserved), but I still propose this idea for what it's worth.  -Lumière 16:18, 20 February 2006 (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.