Wikipedia:Don't call things cruft

Poll without page-refresh

	del.icio.us
	Digg
	Furl
	Reddit
	Rojo
	Add to OnlyWire

This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion.

Shortcut: WP:NOCRUFT

Examples:

Delete as cruft. –Crufthater 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)

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's dirge is another person'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 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 fair use criteria are met.

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 cruft. While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential.

Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft—vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability—is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Although "cruft" 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, the word should be avoided as it is "needlessly agressive 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 discussion."^[1] Thus, editors should instead of declaring something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed.

References

^ Verdatum, "more details about me," Wikipedia (6 December 2007).

Wikipedia:Don't call things cruft

References

See also