[WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

[Joe Anderson]

When I'm using the term listcruft it is not intended to offend the
author. Look at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PS2 DVD9
Games]].

On 5/1/06, Sam Pointon <free.condiments at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 01/05/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On *fD, <foo>cruft is shorthand for 'articles about <foo> that are
> > > below my personal notability threshold'.  Thus its application is
> > > generally tautological and only serves to denigrate the subject
> > > matter.
> >
> > And/or discredit the person using the term. It really is a pretty
> > offensive term, but I don't know if most people using it realise that.
>
> Some people use 'cruft' (me, for example) in the original sense - it's
> the word for that dust and fluff you pull out from under furniture. It
> is, outside of Wikipedia, most commonly applied to badly written and
> messy programming. Back in Wiki context, the term (when used in this
> sense, at least) makes no assertion of notability, but rather suggests
> that the article is in need of a major rewrite and/or cleanup.
>
> So 'listcruft' implies a poorly-written list, probably in need of a
> loving Wikipedian to take it in and foster it back to full health.
> However, some 'cruft' is beyond redemption, and the best remedy for
> that is a brand new stub to take its place.
>
> Can you tell I don't regularly take part in AfDs?
>
> --Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.