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