Deletion of HCA Red List of Endangered Crafts

Comment: The coverage in the ''Times,'' the ''Guardian'' and the ''Independent'' is fairly in-depth. The ''Telegraph'' item is a slide show with less in the captions than I'd like, but it's definitely more than a passing mention and certainly doesn't hurt the case. I don't see how  applies; they're making an analogy (for, one might argue, marketing purposes), not advancing a conspiracy theory
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: The two Guardian sources and the Independent source already in the article are sufficient for it to meet GNG.  That nom thinks the idea is "bordering on " is neither here nor there.  Make a policy-based case for this being a fringe idea if you can, but I don't think you'll be able to.  Arguing by assertion isn't relevant.  Further, {{u|Natureium}} may think it "seems ridiculous" but again, that's not a reason for deletion.  It doesn't seem ridiculous to me at all, but nevertheless I am not asserting that as a reason for keeping. Special:Contributions/192.160.216.52|192.160.216.52
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Assuming the nominator is unfamiliar with heritage crafts in the UK, I have expanded the article with relevant RS citations, none of which are passing mentions (please check), and none of which are fringe publications, mostly the major British broadsheets, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent and other reliable sources, certainly mainstream and far from a fringe theory as per nom . I can assure Natureium that the issue of the disappearance of cultural heritage is far from ridiculous as evidenced by the production of this red list and the seriousness with which it has been subsequently evaluated
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)