Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abbreviations in use in 1911
The nomination seems to overreach.  I would be hard pressed to find a single article of  (rather it all pretty much falls under ) in this list, and it is all eminently .  Yes, 1911 is a somewhat artificial legacy here.  But I suggest (A) an overview of the subject of standard/classic/traditional abbreviations in English (of the kind you might happen to find in a well-edited encyclopedia for the general public in 1911) is a reasonable and important subject (if I have to give an example of the obvious existence of innumerable secondary sources on the subject: G.R. Shankle, ''Current Abbreviations'', New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1945), (B) if it can well be divorced from the year 1911, AfD is not the place to figure out the best strategy for accomplishing that.  A secondary discussion we could have here (though it seems unnecessary to me) would concern how every encyclopedia needs to give an accounting of its ''own'' abbreviations (and the 1911 EB, providing so many Wikipedia articles still awaiting updating, has left a long trail of its abbreviations in our encyclopedia
— User:Wareh, 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:CK||WP:V (Wikipedia:No original research)