Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft


 * 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, essays are given wide latitude agaisnt being labled as disruptive simply by existing (see DICK). This is also a fairly new essay, should it become a disruptive force after a month, feel free to renominate it here. Until then, if there are tone issues editing is always an option! — xaosflux  Talk  16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cruftcruft
Procedural nomination, as IP failed to create this page - "Seems to have been created by one user to make a point. Nothing more than a veiled attack on editors the author disagrees with, presents no justification for the labelling, and neither presents a counter-argument nor proposes a solution to the perceived issue with "cruft".  Last, and by no means least, an egregious failure to assume good faith. 81.104.175.145 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

-- Orderinchaos 05:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy Per the creator's own words here, this essay was created to make a point - even the list at the end is copied, in order, from Schoolcruft. I have no problem with someone holding an alternate point of view, even considering the insinuation that administrators don't close debates in an appropriate manner per WP:DP (which, if it was the case, would be a good reason to take such cases to WP:DRV) but this sort of behaviour (and resultant article creation) is really not acceptable. Orderinchaos 06:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The problem is not so much that it defies WP:AGF, but that it is seemingly unrewritable in a way which doesn't do so - I actually had an attempt at doing so. Also does not cite references, apart from a single AfD in 2005 which ironically closed "delete" and hence one wonders why the creator feels that the essay (and the nastiness) is necessary. Zivko85 06:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable criticism of the indiscrimate use of the word "cruft". Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or more likely Userfy as an on-topic personal opinion essay. It's no more harmful than pro-deletion stuff like WP:VSCA. For this to be disruption to prove a point, there has to be credible evidence of disruption. Doing something productive to prove a point is usually not a problem. --W.marsh 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL "no more harmful than WP:VSCA". Faint praise indeed. Kappa 03:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an AfD regular, I can attest that this is actually a pretty accurate lampoon of the nature of some comments in XfDs. Whether created in good faith or not, it makes a valid point that is related to building the encyclopedia. There's no need to userfy it, as it makes a broad point which is relevant; such opinion essays are expressly allowed in projectspace. Waltontalk 14:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As written, this is full of passive-aggressive insults of its own, such as "The cruft police is sic often too busy deleting articles to engage in any meaningful discussion..." Not a civil essay, regardless of whether or not it identifies a real habit on Wikipedia. Very pointy. -- Kesh 05:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, fairly harmless. Past precedent, e.g. the deletion debate for WP:VSCA, leans toward keeping such pages even when they have no apparent value; in an environment where that page is acceptable it is difficult to imagine any reasonable person being offended by this. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is not so much with people actually being offended, but rather that the essay was clearly created to make a point and attack other users with whom the author disagrees. May settle for a move into userspace in lieu of deletion, but as it stands it is not suitable for the project space.  81.104.175.145 18:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to say that we should assume good faith with this, although it could proabably benefit more from being in the userspace rather than Wikipedia space (userfy) it is still acceptable. Qst 11:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is simply no value to Wikipedia in retaining this essay. The argument that there is somehow a precedent for keeping this because WP:VSCA survived an MfD is more of an argument that WP:VSCA should be nominated for deletion again as well as WP:SCHOOLCRUFT.--Isotope23 18:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this article should be retained 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, as there have been hundreds of XfDs that have related to this matter alone, using Schoolcruft, Fancruft, Listcruft or the all-inclusive Vanispamcruftisement as "justification" for deletion of articles. With the ever-expanding creep of new categories of cruft, Wikipedia editors need to understand the scope and scale of this growing problem that will only get worse. A counterpoint to the -cruft articles needs to exist. To expand on User:Isotope23, there would be no need for this article if the others were deleted or userified, which would be an appropriate and effective solution to address this problem. Alansohn 02:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you, Alan. Orderinchaos 09:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why imitate when you can plagiarize. Your argument was well-worth paraphrasing. Alansohn 11:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not a fan of deleting essays just because someone disagrees with them. Even if I disagree with them. Frankly, the author made a point that I found food for thought. Deletion is already a very complex issue with dozens of ways of looking at it. This viewpoint seems capable of stimulating useful conversation. Of course the essay can be brought up to those with whom the author disagrees; the point of writing Wikipedia essays is to develop a portable and reusable idea, rather than retyping the same argument 50 times over. With that sort of ForestFire, an issue is never really addressed. Grace notes T § 03:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The odd thing is I don't even really disagree with the basic point that -cruft is overused as a reason for deletion by some AfD !voters (I've often raised this at AfDs, especially when people don't cite policy, or cite an essay *over* policy), and that's certainly not the ground on which I'm opposed to the existence of this particular essay. If an alternative wording was to be coded which respected basic AGF, I'd have no problems changing my vote. Orderinchaos 09:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A prime example of the overuse you recognize is at Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School, which uses "As Schoolcruft" as the primary justification for deletion, before moving on to mentions of Wikipedia policy that the nominator believes are not met. The use of an essay prefixed by "WP:" can very well mislead the unaware into assuming that what is a mere essay written by a lone individual pushing their own point of view has any relevance as a reason for deletion. By definition, Cruftcruft opposes such abuse and would not be used misleadingly as a reason for deleting an article. This article has already been edited to reflect suggestions and recommendations from other editors and further changes may well be justified here and at many of the other -cruft articles. Alansohn 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you define the "primary justification"? Looks to me like the primary reason put forward was a failure to meet WP:N, which is by definition a failure to meet WP:V, which is a perfectly valid criterion for deletion.  81.104.175.145 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about when it's the entire content of the first sentence in the AfD nomination. Alansohn 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the first sentence in the AfD nomination. The first sentence is "School does not meet the notability criteria."  The nominator then goes on to clarify why they believe so.  Normally I favour stupidity over malice, but I have to assume you're arguing in bad faith here, because you'd have to be really, really stupid to believe you could infer the "primary justification" purely from the position of the first full-stop.  81.104.175.145 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd reply, but you've done an excellent job yourself of rebutting your claims. Alansohn 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The essay might need to be edited to try and address the concerns in its tone that have been raised. However, the essay makes a fair point and is arguably needed to counter the arguments of other essays such as WP:Schoolcruft. Concerns over the use of the word "cruft" are becoming a big issue on Wikipedia, so a big viewpoint gap would be left if this essay was deleted. Camaron1 | Chris 09:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or - at worst - userfy - It's an ESSAY, showing one user's interpretation of Wikipedia. It seems like a hayride to go around deleting this when the worst it does is assume bad faith.--WaltCip 14:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete One user's peeved reaction to WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. A decent essay could be written about the misuse of "cruft" as a reason to delete, but this is not it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like a personal disagreement rather than a criteria for deletion.--WaltCip 02:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire essay is nothing but a personal disagreement, and has no place in project space. I defy anyone here to put forward a genuine (as opposed to a contrived or will-fit-if-you-look-at-it-the-right-way) example of "cruftcruft" as a problem.  81.104.175.145 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it, don't read it. Your sensibilities aren't ruined by this essay. Some people seem to get really easily offended. Should we put government warning labels on essays like these?--WaltCip 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really a personal disagreement, just that it does not making a particularly compelling case for its thesis, for which (I repeat) I think a good case could be made. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "does not make a compelling case" is grounds for deletion under Wikipedia policy. If you can make the case better, there's always room for improvement. Alansohn 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, what does everyone have against making a point? Please read the entirety of WP:POINT where it also specifies that it must disrupt Wikipedia. This is not happening here. And disagreeing with your opinions isn't attacking you. I found it funny and a pretty accurate reflection of what goes on at AfD. 86.137.60.14 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep no reason to delete. WooyiTalk to me? 14:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You hear that folks? Apparently it is now safe to start posting disruptive point-making attack pieces in the project space, because there is officially no reason to delete them.  Where do I sign up to write Users who disagree with what I say are idiots and therefore can be safely disregarded?  It's an exact duplicate of this essay, but with references to "cruft" replaced with references to "disagreeing with me".  81.104.175.145 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between making a point and violating WP:POINT. The creators and editors of all essays are trying to make a point that Wikipedia policy should be changed, interpreted or reconsidered in their chosen direction. The relevant Wikipedia policy at Policies and guidelines defines an essay as "any page that is not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus. Essays tend to be opinionated." This article meets the textbook definition of an essay. WP:POINT is rather specific in describing a violation as actions that "are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the 'proof'." While I respect your right to disagree, it is abundantly clear from the comments left here at this MfD that the point made by this essay is well understood, and that there is no WP:POINT violation here, despite the multiple repetitions of the claim. Alansohn 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is not that the essay presents an opinion, that part is fine. It's that the opinion presented in the essay is "I don't agree with you, and therefore you're all idiots".  As you say, essays are not strictly actionable (in that we are not bound to follow them), however, WP:AGF is policy, and all this essay serves to do is blanket label anyone who dares utter the word "cruft" in an AfD as a philistine acting in bad faith who intends to destroy the encyclopaedia.  81.104.175.145 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sometimes shudderingly accurate. Besides, it's an essay.  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also a thinly-veiled attack on other editors, with no real argument of its own. 81.104.175.145 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Amusing and almost offensive, though it barely stays within policy. I did not notice any specified individuals being attacked, though some people's diffs were quoted from AfD debates. I think that a quote of someone's own comments can't be viewed as an attack. The present form of the essay does not reflect well on the main author, in my opinion, so I urge him to come up with a better version. It's a valid observation that the word 'cruft' is used a lot in AfD debates, and on those occasions when it's used, it may not be saying much more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  EdJohnston 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this essay is an opposing POV to the WP:*CRUFT essays. Since those are kept in the main Wikipedia namespace, I dont see why this one shouldn't be kept.  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Aquinascruft. John Vandenberg 05:13, 7 July 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.