Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Aquinascruft


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

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Aquinascruft
This is an attack on what was a minor problem and it is being used as an argument on Afds for other schools. "cruft" arguments are bad enough without them also carrying flippant attacks on a private school. John Vandenberg 08:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - Now renamed Since being nominated for MfD, the article has since been re-named to Schoolcruft. Links from within the article and this MfD have been updated accordingly to point to the new essay name. Thewinchester (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In lieu of deletion, I suggest it gets moved to BJAODN as it's extremely funny. (revised opinion below) MER-C 09:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be splendid. I smiled when I first saw it, but cringed when I saw it on an Afd. It is excellent navel gazing. John Vandenberg 09:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That said, I think we should keep this, as overenthusiastic school students describing their awesome school in excessive detail are a real problem. I've seen stuff like this on Randallstown High School, Confey College, Waynflete School (to mention a few) and on new page patrol every now and then when a student writes about his/her favourite teacher(s)/headmaster(s). MER-C 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that it is not a "minor problem" - the problem referred to in the essay has been a *massive* problem in recent months, I believe over 30 XfDs have related to this matter alone, not to mention hundreds (possibly approaching 1000) of speedied or self-nominated articles, and considerable wasted time at WP:GAC and WP:FAC, at least three long-term blocked editors, and countless hours of admins' time (I can't think of a single WA admin who hasn't spent at least a full day of accumulated time on matters relating, and that's not even counting the interstate ones). I do however concede that a more neutral name like "schoolcruft" may be more suitable than the name of a particular school, in which case Rename to Schoolcruft, and take out the specific mentions/namings other than the references to the particular school in question. Incidentally, the problem appears to be linked to editors at private schools being able to claim their time here for their 20 hours of community service at at least 3 Perth schools (I've now had two editors admit it directly, and one even sent me links of discussions). This problem will only get worse when the requirement becomes statewide in 2008. Orderinchaos 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By minor problem, I was referring to the spat of Acquinas College articles we made rather short work of. It was a walled garden; a minor problem in the grand scheme of things (as opposed to systematic bias, original theories, vandalism, seo fun and games, etc).  Precedent set; rinse and repeat.  Do you have a linky for the last part of your comment re community service?  That could even be useful content for this essay, and it would be worth talking to the schools in question to ensure that they stipulate the wikihours must not be spent indulging in COI.  Back to this essay, how does it help solve the problem?  John Vandenberg 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Essay arent policies or even guidelies what they offer is an insight into what areas of the subject are inherently notable, what areas need to estalish notability and what information is considered an indiscriminate collection. Gnangarra 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard of essays before, but why is this one useful to deal with the problem of walled gardens and conflict of interest? We have a WikiProject that focuses on schools.  Why is the case of schoolcruft more important than any other cruft that it warrants an essay in the Wikipedia namespace?  John Vandenberg 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This essay is filling a distinct void of available information on such an extensive group of articles. This foundation of this essay was from a very clear, extremely detailed group of articles that covered the whole spectrum of issues, problems and resolutions(except arbcom). Over the time period of 7 months it has consumed inordinate hours of time for many people distilling the information down to the notable thats warrants encyclopedic consideration. WP Schools while being tagged on the articles wasnt the group of editors that did all of this work, WP Schools has actually been inactive since February 2007 and the only guidelines the Project put forward were rejected by the community. Other cruft forms are covered by the essay WP:FAN which focuses on media based subjects. Gnangarra 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This essay is being used to bring an air of authority to opinons on Afd. It should be moved into User namespace.  John Vandenberg 03:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As the creator of this essay, I am going to abstain from any vote on this MfD. I will say in defence of it that the issue of what Aquinascruft represents is a significant and ever-growing roblem on Wikipedia, and something which the poor Western Australian editors have been dealing with month after month. It's one of the many styles of *cruft which is around, and this specifically attempts to deal with one specific subset of cruft. You need only to look at the samples of cruft and references cited within the essay to see how deep the problem extends, and that's not even going into the latest samples of this style of cruft currently before AfD. As to the point of being an attack, it is not and to suggest otherwise brings a massive smile to my face. It scored the monkier after the phrase was coined in an AfD (See inline citations), and it just grew on enough people on the project to inspire the essay. And if it's moved to BJAODN, then we're going to have to re-add some of the content, because the whole series of Wikifauna references added by Gnangara was just hilarious (and removed only after an outside suggestion regarding the jokes having no place in what is intended to be a light-hearted but none the less reasonable essay). Thewinchester (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Thewinchester (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename as per Orderinchaos. This is a real problem, but the choice of name is unfortunate, especially insofar as it makes the essay appear parochial to Western Australia and could be seen to attack certain schools and editors. The essay should be kept as it does clearly state the problem, thus saving editors from repeating the same arguments again and again in xfd discussions by simply referring to it. -- Mattinbgn/talk 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Essay has no real content apart from broad ranging cliches about editors of school articles. Its more like a personal attack on editors who are trying to do the best that they know as opposed to actually saying anything useful. Everyone already knows the policies listed - it does nothing to interpret or acknowledge the usefulness of any of these. Also - the topic is too narrow - the same problem does occur regarding almost any other organisation - eg clubs etc :: maelgwn :: talk 13:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect to the above comments, this serves a similar purpose to WP:VSCA where instead of having to sit down and write a 500 word summary on why article X should be deleted, you simply note the relevant essay which deals with the sum total of all the issues, and you're done with the nomination and anywhere else you need to use it. As for usefulness, it gives specific insight to the problems faced with school articles, strategies for dealing with users in a Schoolcruft-induced death spiral, and gives samples of problem articles to help users better figure out what are problem articles and what can be let slide. I think the essay as a whole is a valuable resource, and if anything helps to encourage a wider discussion on various editorial problems on Wikipedia, how to avoid them, and how to fix them. Thewinchester (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It actually has very little in the way of content. The dealing with the users involved is all obvious, the list of 'Ways to spot schoolcruft' is full of in jokes and again, the only real content is obvious. On top of this the article is full of personal attack on any new wikipedia editor who might edit their schools article and also upon private schools. EG or the most part, have no education or understanding in the ways of the wiki. and majority of Schoolcruft issues will arise in relation to private schools. :: maelgwn :: talk 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can actually see where you're coming from, although I do disagree. It has enough content to explain the phenomenon, its key features, and how to deal with it, after months of painful experience on our part. I have absolutely no problem with new schools editors, many of whom do not generate Schoolcruft, and that's not what this essay is trying to address - it's addressing certain groupthink behaviours by a select group of editors which do not further Wikipedia and heap more work onto those of us who are actually trying to keep the thing on track. Also, I'm not seeing any in jokes? All of the points are clearly observable phenomena - the school song addition is not only copyvio and an obvious no-no, but is also a key sign that an article has reached tipping point. The citation of the school diary is a key issue against WP:RS as noone but a current student of the school can reference the diary - in the example linked from that point, there are so many references to the diary that it goes into double letters on two different lines, indicating at least 60 references. Also re private schools, they have more of a sense of identity than public schools, which are largely all the young people who happen to live in a particular school district. Several of us are former private school students ourselves so it definitely is not an attack. Orderinchaos 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think the school diary and school song are in - jokes. As in people involved with the specific case would get a chuckle out of it. I doubt that it has occurred in any other case, the problems with it are clear and easy to deal with. :: maelgwn :: talk 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per Orderinchaos. This is a real problem, it's not specifically limited to certain schools in Western Australia, and we ought to have an informational page on the problem. The only issue with the page is the reference to one specific, troublesome case, so we can just fix that. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, i've performed a clean-up on this article hence why it's been re-named already, depreciated older shortcuts (will still point to article for where they are already in use, just not shown as a shortcut in the main essay), and added a few extra things in (Thanks for MER-C for those diffs, they were great reading). I feel there needs to be reference to the original inspiration for the essay, and I have chosen to keep that in there to provide some better context for how it started life, which should remove all if not most concerns about it being perceived as some form of attack essay. I just find it a shame when all these super-serious users take all the levity out of Wikipedia (Do we need to mention the recent BJAODN debacle at this juncture?) Thewinchester (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there was nothing minor about the originating source of this cruft issue, the current version includes referencing to schools other then the original, some sections could do with further work but its invaluable to be able direct another editor to something that shows how other editors addressed this type of cruft. Gnangarra 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Since the rename, there is no problem with it. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand fully how it was created with the name that it was created with, but expansion in scope to be Schoolcruft makes it much less of a borderline personal attack. Garrie 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My reason for proposing the rename, which seems to be bearing fruit, is that it allows us to do the wider topic justice. While this one incident was probably THE perfect demonstration of the problem, it's not hard to find examples elsewhere, and some have already been included. Orderinchaos 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment on the rewrite ... the essay has taken a turn for the better, and addresses my core concern of it being a thinly veiled attack piece. My other concern is that WP:*CRUFT are used to often on Afd in place of real opinions; shorthand for "I dont like it, and am sure it fails something that others have said here, but I dont want to be specific as that would require real consideration".  These votes do not help admins conclude an Afd.  Thoughts? John Vandenberg 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I consider it relevant to deletion process, even if it is only one writer's opinion (that's the minimalist definition of "essay"). As to concerns about how people will cite this on AFD, there's really not much we can do about that.  It's not a reason to throw out the baby with the schoolcruft. Placeholder account 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to be pedantic, but the essay is the work of three different editors. I did like the joke at the end of your comment. Thewinchester (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - (having been renamed and improved) on the basis of new school age editors starting to document their school room, oval etc - it would be an excellent guide (when fully developed) to such new editors of the perspective - which many do not appear to have - of what wikipedia is about - it will - if worked on sufficiently - be a good guide to such aspiring creators of articles and items about their .000000023 % of their corner of the known universe - and help the perspective in relation to notability etc SatuSuro 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless essay, will probably be improved and thus become more useful over time.  The "Left unchecked" paragraph is too true, btw. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; I think its arguments are utter bull, but nonetheless it is a good-faith essay explaining some editors' stance on an important issue within Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with it.  Kurt Weber
 * Keep. It is ridiculous to nominate an article for deletion because it is being referred to in AFD processes.  That is just an attempt to manipulate the AFD process.--Grahamec 07:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy I'm worried that this is a bad essay/definition/whatever it wants to call itself. While funny at time, it misses the mark of explaining the problem far too often, and the condescending tone and constant shorthand and coded language borders on newbie biting.  Supposedly, this is a page that users will be linked to to point to problems with an article or their editing and it's not ok.  It's not understandable unless you already know exactly what's being talked about and even then, there are points where it gets shaky.  I think that a essay that talks about the problems with schoolcruft is needed and appropriate, but I think that this has a long way to go before it's there, and I think it's wholly inappropriate to be linking to is in AFDs or anything else at this point in time.  The page is more of an in-joke than a real essay.  I've made several suggestions on the talk page and hopefully this will improve, in which case I have no qualms about saying keep.  If this doesn't improve though, it should be userfied, and this definitely shouldn't be being used at this point in time to point to problems with articles or behavior.  Use the term, use the references in the essay, but people conducted Afds and everything else just fine before this, they can do it without it, or until this becomes a viable essay. Miss Mondegreen  talk  13:25, June 9 2007 (UTC)
 * I have since gotten replies to my comments and this essay apparantly doesn't mean to address schoolcruft in general, it just means to address certain behavioral problems, which I find problematic. I find it deeply disturbing that an essay that addresses behavoir and not content is being written in such a tone, and is being used in Afds.  It only really addresses content in terms of behavoir, so using it in an Afd is inappropriate and IMO a violation of WP:BITE.  It's referring users to a page that they probably can't understand most of...but they will get the condescending tone and the insults to them as editors. As I said earlier, I think that an essay that discusses schoolcruft is needed, but this doesn't plan to do that.  This is being used as a resource, and it's wholly inappropriate--not just given its current status, but given the stated goals, which means that improvement is unlikely.  I also think that the editors have a serious misunderstanding of what it means to have their essay in the mainspace--either that, or some brushing up on wikipedia's policies and guidelines is in order.  The editors need to realize that once in the mainspace, they lose any editorial control they had, and need to stop WP:OWNing.  Userification seems like it would be best for everyone.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  21:17, June 9 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Miss Mondegreen. Likewise I have suggested how it might be improved. It actually has potential for harm. First off, we get many new editors who start by creating/changing their school articles. If too badly bitten we could lose them for life. Secondly, the term 'Schoolcruft' is a disparaging and regrettable term. In AfDs, in my experience, editors usually describe pages as 'cruft' when they have nothing more constructive to say. We should be reducing and discouraging the use of such value-laden terms. As I have suggested on the talk page there is good scope for a properly written article; outlining the problem and then discussing constructive ways forward. TerriersFan 20:47, 9 June 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.