Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eruvin (3rd nomination)
This list has clearly defined selection criteria, per . Additionally, the narrow scope of the list complies with . The argument that many of the eruvs don't meet  is a red herring;  explains that {{tq|"one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles"}}. Likewise, the argument that the list is poorly sourced is also misplaced. Per , the solution is to find better sources ({{tq|"If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page
— User:Notecardforfree, 04:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:LSC||WP:SALAT||WP:GNG||WP:LSC||WP:ATD (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists)