G'day Sam,
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.
In computing terms, "cruft" is often used as a synonym for Phillip K Dick's "kipple" --- the little errors that build up in Windows over time. Entropy in action. Likewise "cruft" can refer to the encyclopaedia holding more crap than not as people's enthusiasm overwhelms their common sense. Sadly, what is and is not crap is subject to hot debate.
Describing someone's good-faith contributions as "cruft" can be quite offensive, and the mere fact that people see it as having value makes the "cruft" moniker likely to be improperly applied. Then again, there are some contributions that simply cannot be defended. There used to be an "... in popular culture" section in our article on DEFCON that said something like "In /Buffy the Vampire Slayer/, Faith says 'we're at DEFCON 2!', or words to that effect" ...
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?
-cruft is coming to mean "I don't want this here", and has therefore changed in meaning from insulting the person who wrote an up-for-deletion article into the new, and more disturbing, form of insulting the person who uses it, and the intelligence of the person who reads it.