<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Wikipedia%3ACruftcruft</id>
	<title>Wikipedia:Cruftcruft - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Wikipedia%3ACruftcruft"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cruftcruft&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-05-15T06:35:26Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.5</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cruftcruft&amp;diff=5636&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Tachyony: Imported page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cruftcruft&amp;diff=5636&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2021-12-19T18:01:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Imported page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;{{essay|WP:CRUFT2|WP:CRUFTCRUFT}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Cruftcruft&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;[[meta]]-cruft&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (a [[reduplication]] of the word &amp;#039;&amp;#039;[[Wikipedia:Fancruft|cruft]]&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to mean &amp;quot;cruft on the topic of cruft&amp;quot;), is a term used to refer to editorial and policy issues often encountered in the course of dealing with [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] (AfD).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==What is cruft?==&lt;br /&gt;
Before moving on to &amp;quot;cruftcruft&amp;quot;, one must first analyze &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot; on its own. An example [[Wikipedia:Glossary#!vote|!vote]] at AfD might say:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Delete&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as cruft. –[[User:Crufthater|Crufthater]] 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Cruft&amp;quot; originated in [[hacker]]dom, where it was used to mean &amp;quot;something which [is] badly designed, poorly implemented, or redundant.&amp;quot; It was picked up in popular culture, where it has been defined as &amp;quot;useless junk or excess materials&amp;quot;, and ultimately to describe &amp;quot;material which is typically lacking in quality, selectively biased, of a poor nature and of interest only to a small audience.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, this definition&amp;#039;s lack of any objective criteria leaves &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot; in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully unencyclopedic, &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot; can become any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Don&amp;#039;t call things cruft===&lt;br /&gt;
{{shortcut|WP:NOCRUFT}}&lt;br /&gt;
While declaring something to be &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot; in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability [[WP:NOT#IINFO|are not acceptable for Wikipedia.]] Although &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot; is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not necessarily be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information, use of the word can cause offence as it is &amp;quot;needlessly aggressive and needlessly insults the contributors ... It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes [[WP:Civil|civil discussion]].&amp;quot; Editors, instead of simply declaring something to be &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot;, should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;why&amp;#039;&amp;#039; they think the material should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere.  Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person&amp;#039;s cacophony is another person&amp;#039;s symphony.  The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there is no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. Other editors hate [[WP:FU|fair use]] images and text, but again, unless a policy is adopted that prohibits fair use material on Wikipedia, the fact that an image is fair use, or an article contains a lot of fair use media, is not grounds for deletion provided [[WP:FUC|fair use criteria]] are met.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as [[WP:CRUFT|cruft]].  While the &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot; label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot; has [[Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state|potential]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Characteristics of cruftcruft==&lt;br /&gt;
# Almost always used as justification for a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;delete&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; !vote in an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Article for Deletion]] discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Options other than &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;delete&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; not often considered.&lt;br /&gt;
# Often accompanied by the two-letter abbreviation &amp;quot;[[WP:N|NN]]&amp;quot; (non-notable) as a justification for deletion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Use of the word &amp;quot;Cruft&amp;quot;, commonly found in portmanteau forms, such as &amp;quot;listcruft&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;gamecruft&amp;quot;, and the nearly all-inclusive &amp;quot;[[Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement|Vanispamcruftisement]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
# Wikipedia policies and guidelines are seldom referenced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cruft essays==&lt;br /&gt;
Various essays have been created to describe supposed variations of the &amp;quot;cruft&amp;quot; problem:&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Discussing cruft]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Fancruft]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Schoolcruft]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Editorial and policy issues of cruftcruft==&lt;br /&gt;
Cruftcruft covers editorial and policy issues including the following, though anything corresponding to relevant Wikipedia policy is traditionally ignored:&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Notability]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not:]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[WP:NOT#OR|Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[WP:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[WP:NOT#LINK|Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[WP:NOT#DIR|Wikipedia is not a directory]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[WP:NOT#IINFO|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[WP:CSD|Criteria for Speedy Deletion]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest|Conflicts of interest]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[WP:SPAM|Guidelines on external linking]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other Wikipedians&amp;#039; commentaries on this area ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Complete bollocks]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[User:Jamyskis/Wiki-Hell]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:I wouldn&amp;#039;t know him from a hole in the ground]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[User:GlassCobra/Essays/What Wikipedia is]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Article development]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 35#Why inclusion matters]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 24#Why inclusion of fictional subjects matters]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:What Isn&amp;#039;t Grounds for Article Deletion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Wikipedia essays|civility}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia culture|Cruftcruft]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia essays about notability|Cruftcruft]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wikipedia essays|Cruftcruft]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tachyony</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>