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 delete. Sandstein 05:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of acronyms used in arts and crafts[edit]

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

There is no evidence for why the topic is encyclopedic. The subject of the article (the list of acronyms used in arts and crafts) fails WP:N since it hasn't received significant commentary from reliable, third-party sources. Perhaps some of the contents are individually notable, but the collection of them isn't. Them From Space 09:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for any reason anyone can think of. really. this is just useless. any of these acronyms with any usage can go in the acronym disambigs for them. these are not notable as "arts and crafts" acronyms. Great, OOAK is being used on WP as if its a standard english acronym, which its not. since when did arts and crafts devolve into doll repainting? I think that article needs to be afd'd as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary... they can break it out into individual entries. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (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.