[WikiEN-l] Re: Notability meta-guidelines

Thu Jan 19 20:58:19 UTC 2006

> Classic counterexample: nominating a handful of articles on *physical
> elements* as "sciencecruft".

Yeah, looks like it was one troll (aptly named 'trollminator')
deliberately being provocative (probably to prove a point). All the
articles got kept. All the other uses of the term are references back to
that one.

Anyway, I'm starting to think that we should relax about "fancruft".
Anything that can be stated in an encyclopaedic fashion (X appears in
series 2 and 3 of show Y; according to this academic paper, X displays
repressed homosexuality) should be kept. The only true fancruft which
should go is pure speculation or unreferenced junk written about such
topics (X in series Y looks vaguely like Z in series W) or total trivia
(X and Y kiss 37 times in the first series, I COUNTED!).  But are there
really whole articles that should be destroyed for such a reason? Maybe
I need to browse the AfD archives some more :)

Steve