Steve Bennett wrote:
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0601180739x58cee2bai8424268f8cd0eb30@mail.gmail.c
om... [snip]
- Imaginary or fictitious subjects have less right to appear in
Wikipedia than other subjects. {The fancruft principle}
That takes care of those pesky religious articles, and the literature,
and
the TV programmes, and the movies ...
On what basis do you make this particular claim?
Ok I was definitely unclear :) I am trying to find the rationale behind people's revulsion of "fancruft". I don't see the derogatory word "cruft" used to describe any subject on wikipedia, no matter how esoteric, that is based on the physical world.
Wrong. I've seen articles called "mathcruft", "puzzlecruft", "schoolcruft", "roadcruft"...
"nn. Yankcruft, d." ?