Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruft

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft[edit]

It's a neologism used primarily by the wikipedia community. The article's three links show it as an obscure neoligism. Also wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is dictionary definition article. It's "Popular Culture" is basically about its use on wikipedia. The whole article is completely unreferenced and full of original research. Anomo 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the article may not be great, "cruft" is a term which has significant pre- and out of Wikipedia usage as shown by the external links on the page (noting particularly the Jargon File). --Pak21 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy paradox, BatChap! So, is the article on Cruft actually cruft itself? I'm not sure that its entirely without merit so i'm going with a rather shaky and weak Keep. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the term is used elsewhere than just Wikipedia (per Pak21, the Jargon File entry establishes currency elsewhere). That said, a spring clean on the article wouldn't hurt. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is one of the most common words from the Jargon File, used throughout the Internets. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... which is an argument for keeping wikt:cruft, but not necessarily the associated encyclopedia article. (to the nom: wikt:talk:cruft shows it predates Wikipedia by at least 20 years) --Interiot 14:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a wikipedia disambig article: "Internets (colloquialism), term used to denote ignorance of the Internet or technology in general; inadvertently popularized by U.S. President George W. Bush's comment during a 2004 Presidential election debate with John Kerry." Anomo 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, that was supposed to be subtle humor, since the term is generally used to mock Bush's ignorance, but is actually a more accurate term than "the Internet", since the Internet is made up of multiple internets. Oy. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A dictionary definition - so not for Wikipedia - it's suitable for Wikitionary however. CloudNine 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It reads like a long, glorified, dicdef, and I'm not seeing how it could ever be more. GassyGuy 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, used outside Wikipedia and the article is and could be more than just a dictionary definition. -- nae'blis 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has jargon file entry and use outside wikipedia. Could use pruning though to excise any OR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; removing or externally sourcing any references to Wikipedia usage of the term. --EngineerScotty 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cruft is not cruft, but the cruft needs de-crufting... --Roninbk _{t c #} 22:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator is mistaken. Gazpacho 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Article is a bit messy but is much more than a dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why don't some of the proponents of the article who have voted to keep it here make it better then I'm sure we'd all agree to keep it? --JimmyTheWig 09:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because as it stands, it a stub that could survive without life support. I have performed "article CPR" before, but this one still has a pulse and a breath... --Roninbk _{t c #} 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, AFD is not a club to hit people over the head with. -- Gwern (contribs) 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I read the keep arguments and still this is little more than a dicdef. Wikipedia:Fancruft has a place and wiktionary cruft has a place. I am not seeing anything significant in the article to warrant an article yet. Anomo 11:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable wiki-cruft. MLA 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a jargon term that's been around for a long time and definitely predates Wikipedia. Of course, the article can be improved, but AfD Isn't Cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be kept simply because its a common term on Wikipedia. However some of the more obscure uses of the word (for example in MIT slang) are not notable and those parts can be removed from the article. Edrigu 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tobyk777 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A blatant case of cruftcruft 88.104.212.155 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: It is a word that occurs here and there. While it could be moved to Wiktionary, the article looks too nice to be moved to Wiktionary in my opinion. I would also first search Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary, if I wanted to know things about "Cruft". --Bisqwit 11:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a particular problem with this article, which I find informative. Peter O. (Talk) 21:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was great for a chuckle, thank you Anomo. RFerreira 23:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep per proposal I left on this articles talkpage: see [1]. Barring that then maintain Weak Redirect to Wikipedia:Fancruft --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 September 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.