Deletion of No-go area (2nd nomination)

Comment: It is obviously a "real thing" and is amply sourced.  reserve, ot paper.  efore.  The issues that are listed are reasons and issues to improve the article, ''not'' DELETE it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:N||WP:B)

Comment: or '''Split''': I understand the accusation of , but it feels like a stretch to apply it to a whole topic; I'm not clear what conclusion is being reached that sources don't support and various lists may have trouble meeting this standard. Moreover, road-concept articles are generally preferred to road-concept disambiguations. However, there does seem to be merit in the argument that the term no-go area is poorly defined; based on the lead (which has {{tl|lead extra info}} issues), there does seem to be distinct types of zones that may be best served with separate articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:B||WP:B)