Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was: speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1 (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fancruft

This essay and the concept of fancruft is being wielded too liberally to justify WP:IDONTLIKE-based deletion arguments. Further, the use of pejorative language, which this essay encourages, is bordering on non WP:CIVIL language as the base term cruft originally was used to mean "garbage." Instead of this essay, references to notability guidelines should suffice. Prisencolin (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I have seen this cited for many, many AfDs about fancruft. Often I disagree yet I see the usefulness of the reference. What will I do if I come to a Dungeons and Dragons AfD and the nominator cannot cite this? Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DETAIL could be expanded and suffice. The point is, the use of the term "cruft" borders on offensive language that shouldn't be used in civil discussion on this website. I would be partial to a suggestion that this essay be kept but renamed something else. But as it stands, the premise of the essay is to belittle and ridicule other people's hobbies and interests. Besides, level of detail is not something that AFD should even cover at all, since it not meant to be used to clean up messy articles. The existence of cruft is not intrinsically a notability issue. --Prisencolin (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop trying to delete Wikipedia history that one finds offensive etc. Wikipedia is not censored, and this even more true for our history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this essay in principal. The nom is upset due to several of his new fancruft articles being challenged at AFD, AFC, and DRV, and is in the midst of forumshopping numerous boards, admins and reviewers trying to get around it. I'd have tried to temper this message some, but since the user has devolved into accusing anyone opposed to his content as being part of some wider conspiracy of editors who hate the game he's a fan of, shrug. The user can't hear that the topics he wants to write about aren't notable. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ferret: The only reason I posted this discussion is because you've insist on using language like "cruft" (i.e.WP:ITSCRUFT) which is clearly listed an argument to avoid in deletion arguments.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm done engaging on this topic going forward, but my !vote at the AFD clearly stated a lack of sigcov as my reason, with no mention of the word cruft at all. That I may have used the word in other discussions along the way as you continue to bludgeon the topic and shop/game around is separate. -- ferret (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we deleted every essay, policy or guideline that is sometimes used improperly in deletion discussions, there would not be any of those pages left. Overly liberal use of this essay is an issue with AfD voters, not with the essay itself. The term "cruft" is hardly incivil, at least no more than say, WP:SPAM. Spicy (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I changed my mind about this essay. However @Spicy: it is the opinion of many that "cruft" should is one of the terms in WP:ATA, but editors continue to use it in arguments as a kind of WP:VAGUEWAVE towards policy.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not a fan of the essay and its related term myself. But it is trying to explain notability problems with articles, rather than encouraging editors to ridicule their colleagues. Deleting it will not make discussions in Wikipedia more civil. The notability policies will not change either. Dimadick (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close request WP:SKCRIT nomination withdrawn Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.