Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Necropolis Company

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The article meets all WP:N and WP:RS requirements, and per WP:SNOW consensus I am closing this as a keep. Not knowing about an issue makes it impossible to determine the validity of the original proposal. — Ched : ? 18:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Necropolis Company[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this for deletion due to legal and license compatibility issues. See this discussion for more details. Basically, the article's creator and a member of Arbcom have said that this cannot appear on the main page due to secret legal issues. Taking them at their word, this would mean that due to these legal issues we have to stop this article from getting publicity and being seen by many users. If we don't delete this article it will surely be seen by many users over time, something that we're told has some legal problem. It was also noted in that discussion that this poses licensing issues. We're in essence encouraging people to reuse something that may cause them legal problems without letting them know that. So I think it would be best to delete this until the legal issues are settled. AndreaGail2013 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, unsure why a newly registered user is nominating at AFD on first day, but this is most clearly not a candidate for AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - articles should not be deleted due to unspecified and uncertain legal issues unless required by functionaries with actual knowledge of those issues. Warofdreams talk 18:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and leave it to those who actually understand the issue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I am the member of Arbcom referred to above (although I'm not writing this in my capacity as such). Having been familiarized with the issues, I can state that deleting this article is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.