Deletion of Longest streets in London

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Crystal-clear violation of , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: 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 . 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V)

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 ,  etc. are all about and don't have a problem. My advice is to find a new pet peeve. ++Deiz
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V)

Comment: I'm with Turnstep; the |original research prohibition has its limits and needs to be flexible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: for being a violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: unless the article lists its source(s) (i.e.  and ). 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: This is one of the clearest violations of  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)