Deletion of List of residences in EastEnders

Comment: as failing , with no references to prove the assertions, as well as lacking real-world notability, and therefore failing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:FICT)

Comment: as the person who made the initial request to post this at AfD. This article is still completely lacking in citations and demonstration as to the notability of the buildings outside the EastEnders universe per  and . I have yet to see anybody offer a citation outside of the BBC (which is hardly independent) showing the significance of any of these outside of the fictional world of the series, no reviews, no books about the series, nothing except for a BBC.com map, which states most of the entries on the list trivially at best. The handful that are notable on their own (I trust that they meet  and , but I'll have to check them at a later time) already have their articles, which means that if we eliminate those that cannot be cited or verified, we are left with only the ones that have the articles in the first place... and this list would have to be deleted as it would fail . Special:Contributions/147.70.242.54|147.70.242.54
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:FICTION||WP:LIST)

Comment: episodes are not elements of fiction, whereas the residences of a soap that you think is more notable than another ''are'' and require real world notability per the guideline ; If every element of a show should be covered in an encyclopaedia just because the show itself is notable, you end up with truly ludicrous amount of coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: Fails  ''ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced''.  There would probably not be much difficulty with Albert Square or the Queen Vic, but 3a Albert Square? Can't find a news item that ones mentioned in.  And the article has a trivia section - that's ironic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: These lists are neither unreferenced nor original research; the primary source is indicated at the bottom of each article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/places/ Map of Albert Square; and the show itself constitutes a primary source as well. Descriptive information that can be verified by anyone from primary sources without any special expert knowledge is not "|original research" according to policy. It also cannot "fail ", as that ''proposed'' guideline is currently being drafted to say ''nothing'' on the subject of lists (except to refer to the list guidelines). Neither does it "completely fail "—this guideline does not require every item on a list to be individually notable (except in general for lists of people), and in no way are these lists "too broad", as there are clearly a finite and manageable number of locations in Walford in the ''EastEnders'' universe. And the list provides a useful navigational purpose, which is one of the main purposes of lists. At worst, the information could be merged to Walford and Albert Square, but there is no reason to delete valid and verifiable information like this. As ''EastEnders'' gets a ''vast'' amount of coverage from independent sources, such as regularly published periodicals like ''Soaplife'' and ''Inside Soap'', it wouldn't surprise me in the least that much of the information in these lists could be verified ''independently'' by those magazines, which would indicate enough notability for the separate topic of the buildings and residences in this long-running and popular soap. Of course the contents of these magazines are not available online, so we couldn't simply prove it with a Google search; it would require extensive research by someone who has access to these sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:FICT||WP:LIST)