Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenway (Middle-earth)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

Greenway (Middle-earth)
Roadcruft and fancruft. Wow.
 * I'm actually neutral, but I'm listing this here as a form of finding case law, to establish bounds. --SPUI 05:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * See backstory at Votes for undeletion. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) 05:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * That was actually just what pushed me over the edge; I've been threatening this for a little while. --SPUI 05:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a disruptive entry, and should be quickly removed. Keep and chastise the editor who listed this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've changed my mind back to my initial reaction on seeing this article. This is way too much detail about a fictional road. --SPUI 06:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abusing the annoying term "cruft" is inherently POV, and if you're going to delete articles about fiction there are far worse examples to start. Nothing in the Wikipedia policy can be abused to delete this article. This is not just any road in Middle-earth, but arguably the most important one. -- Jordi&middot; ✆ 06:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete a road in Middle Earth... wow. Grue 07:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, why the fuck can't I make up my mind? I'm neutral again. Maybe after I sleep I'll be strong keep. Fuck the man with the deletionist plan. I'll abstain, now and in the future, due to not being able to make up my mind. By the way, the 'cruft' labels were sarcastic, lashing out at those who label articles like York Road 'roadcruft'. I'm too tired to be doing this shit now. --SPUI 07:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, I see that initially I voted to delete Route 128 Station and have since changed my mind. If it comes up on VfD again (as it should) I'll vote "keep." Foolish consistency, hobgoblin, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, disingenious nomination. Gazpacho 08:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Category:Middle-earth_places is chockfull of valleys, rivers, peaks, and several roads. If this is a test case then it should be framed better. -Willmcw 09:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are a lot of places in the middle earth less deserving articles. - Jeltz talk  09:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important element in one of the key fictons of modern literature. The mind boggles. Agree this is a poor test case, I'm not sure that test cases are a good idea at all in fact. Andrewa 10:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep reasons above Lectonar 11:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. SPUI raises a reasonable question, and doesn't do so offensively. The only time he's rude is about/to himself and about the general business of commenting on Wikiworthiness. (Out of laziness, I'll assume he's male.) There are now 80 "Middle earth places", 22 "Middle-earth hobbits", etc. List of Middle-earth articles is what makes my mind boggle. I don't rush to say that there's anything wrong with this -- they're much-loved books and all that. (I enjoyed them myself when I was about 14.) But I too wonder whether something is askew when fictional roads are OK but admittedly less-than-famous roads in the real world are not. Is this where SPUI should have raised the question? Perhaps not, but I see no reason why anyone should "chastise" him. -- Hoary 11:15, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
 * While I do believe that all these breakout Middle-Earth articles are getting out of hand, this isn't the place to address it. I think a lot of merging could be done, particularly for the minor articles (of which there are plenty). Of course, any proposal to do this will be fought tooth and nail by the Tolkien fans. A modest proposal I made for combining the all the Kings of Numenor into a single article (with the 3 or 4 important ones still keeping articles of their own) was dismissed as crazy and threatened with immediate reversion if it were even attempted. And yet with many other important works of fiction people have no problem with characters redirecting back to the original book. At some point Wikipedia as a whole has to get some sort of sense of proportion, and some consistency. -R. fiend 17:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a road. In a book of fiction. Not majorly central to the plot (in the way that, say the Mines of Moria were), and with no break out effect whatsoever on the world. And people think that someone should be chastised for daring to question why this is would be in an encyclopedia? IT'S FICTION, PEOPLE! Put it this way - would anyone voting 'keep' for this consider voting 'delete' if I wrote an article about the recent Chelsea vs Manchester United football match? Be honest, plenty of you would thing that was unnecessary sporting trivia. Well, some people think the same about what you may appear to find tremendously interesting. If you want to know about this road, read the book. It doesn't exist separately. Delete. Average Earthman 21:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disingenous nomination. If SPUI is "neutral" about the article then he should not have nominated the article, it's as simple as that. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point VfD is for executing established policy, not a forums for creating new policy. The article itself is a borderline keep. It is a reasonably good article about a reasonably important part of an extremely notable fantasy world. Given this, the level of detail is not grossly excessive, i.e. these five paragraphs belong in some Wikipedia article. Personally I would prefer to see them within a larger, well-organized article, with or without a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * P. S. I am soooooo tempted to Pi for deletion, just so I could say "Delete, pi-cruft." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't care. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 23:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I normally vote against roads but there is something here I think worth keeping for now, borderline. Megan1967 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the other JRRTfanroadcruft. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) 03:26, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Could we perhaps have an article called Transportation in Middle-earth? Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons above and consistency with previous Middle-earth nominations. Eric119 05:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Tolkien's cultural influence has become so pervasive, this article amounts to entertaining and helpful LOTR cruft. Wyss 22:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Avoid using offensive suggestions of "cruft" whenever possible. GRider\talk 23:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * From trusty http://www.dictionary.com:
 * cruft /kruhft/ [very common; back-formation from crufty] 1. n. An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a broom only produces more. 2. n. The results of shoddy construction. 3. vt. [from `hand cruft', pun on `hand craft'] To write assembler code for something normally (and better) done by a compiler (see hand-hacking). 4. n. Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of redundant or superseded code. 5. [University of Wisconsin] n. Cruft is to hackers as gaggle is to geese; that is, at UW one properly says "a cruft of hackers".
 * What's offensive about that...? Wyss 00:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Confusing format corrected by Jerzy(t) 04:10, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)]
 * Perhaps a confusion between the relatively inoffensive "cruft" and the relatively offensive crud. Jeepers! Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. On procedural grounds that too much insincerity has been evidenced by the nominator. (I have no objection to renomination and consideration then on its merits, after a decent interval (weeks) by a different nominator, who has not tainted the nomination as this one has.) Nominations, like article creations, should not be done to make a point, and this nominator has exhausted any deserved benefit of the doubt several times over. --Jerzy(t) 04:16 & 13:45, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)


 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.