Deletion of Longest streets in London (2nd nomination)

Comment: The article should be expanded and improved. As it stands, the article relies on no measuring of maps (although one reference is an enquiry to a mapping web site), and only uses source-based research (as encouraged by ). All entries are properly referenced to reliable sources but I agree that "map" would be an unsuitable reference. No Crown Copyright information is involved but, in any case, infringement of copyright involves reproduction, not use. Ikkyu2's view, cited above, "...a truly garbage article that satisfies WP policy, can't be deleted, and is useless..." provides no reason for deletion. I have added Harrow Road to demonstrate how the article can be developed. Roads, and London, hold little interest for me but the article is at least potentially encyclopedic and currently infringes no policies. However, even I would not propose it for Featured Article status
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Of the roads with lengths, two have sources (time out). Your addition has sources, and would be a useful addition to an the road article. For Western avenue, you cannot say "Multimap says A, and map says B, therefore A+B=C", as that is an example of #Example_of_a_new_synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. The sufficiency of the references '''was''' challenged three months ago (by myself included) on the appropiate talk page, and I think three months is a more than reasonable time to wait for sources to be found, and if they haven't been found after three months, chances are they can't be found, which is why I nominated it here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: as  and according to comments by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)