I've thought about this a little bit more and understand how what I had there could be inflammatory due to the discussion we are having. I have deleted it as a sign of good faith. Also, to clarify my stated interest in "cruftcruft", it was put there partly as a joke, but the serious side is that I do believe that the overuse of "cruft" as a reason for deletion is a real problem. Simply waving the "cruft wand" should not be enough to have an article removed (also I think the word "cruft" is itself hilarious and "cruftcruft" doubly so). If memory serves I have never referred to any work as "cruft" and hopefully never will. In our discussion I believe I have stuck to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Rejectwater (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your act of good faith. I was getting rather frustrated and may have been oversensitive to the subtext of your page. After reading the Wikipedia:Cruftcruft page, point 2 seemed to be occurring (from Wikipedia:Cruftcruft#Ways to spot Cruftcruft, and because I kept finding material in the sections cited that disagreed with your interpretation it seemed that the policies and guidelines being cited were only token citations to avoid being called on points 3 and 7. I concede that in my frustration I had a much less civil tone than I like, and I apologize. That said, I still do not understand how the interpretations you and others have made are valid in light of the entire context of the rules cited, but my interpretation doesn't matter. If the traditional interpretation of the rules differs from the text of them though, I wish that the text would be updated to match--especially where the interpretation contradicts the current guideline directly. ~~sigh~~ Regardless of that, I can see that you are simply following the current interpretation, and intended no malice, so thank you again for your act of good faith. It may even keep me around long enough to learn the traditional interpretations myself. -- John (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different people will have different interpretations of the various guidelines and policies. This is normal and part of the process. I usually go for the spirit and intent of a rule, rather than the letter (this is Wikipedia after all, and the letter can change at any time). Unfortunately this can make it hard for me to explain my position and difficult for others to understand my reasoning (Protonk, I think, made a much better OR case than I did, for instance). But, in any case, consensus is what we're going for and hopefully we can achieve it. As far as sticking around, hopefully you will as you obviously do have a lot of passion. It is a problem Wikipedia seems to be facing, the loss of new editors who leave due to the fallout from debates like these. Hopefully we can agree to continue to work towards what is best for Wikipedia. If we can agree what that is. :) Rejectwater (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that the rules are being over-interpreted in the direction of deletionism. There were sections of the guidelines that plainly show that this topic is fine. For example, in the actual guidelineWikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people the category Category:Wikipedians by alma mater is referenced. Where has this topic been covered in secondary and tertiary sources? How is this topic notable? Where--other than here on Wikipedia--has this information ever been published before? I fail to see why Category:People by educational institution is fine, as is Category:Fictional characters by occupation, but a simple list (which is intended for less substantial categorizations) of Fictional characters by educational institution would be less notable as long as the list members are notable characters (i.e., worthy of their own articles in Wikipedia). If the interpretation that you and others are championing is valid, then perhaps some of these other lists and categories need to be cleaned out, perhaps the examples listed in the guidelines themselves need to be cleansed in favor of more notable examples... or perhaps the interpretation is a little over-interpreted and over-ambitious. Either way, unless the atmosphere here changes, I'm not likely to bother sinking my time into creating an article ever again. I have no interest in being put through this again, nor do I have the time for it. Deletionism and Inclusionism are both only good in moderation. This attitude of ignoring the text of the rules in favor of deleting an article--when the rule is to improve if possible and delete only if necessary--has left a sour taste in my mouth. ~~sigh~~ And again, I am getting too worked up. This is why I'll be putting WP aside. I hate when rules are twisted to suit an agenda, and while I don't feel that you specifically are doing this, I feel that the current traditional interpretation of the rules has been twisted to support a strongly deletionist viewpoint. Until that changes I doubt that I'll jump into this fire again. -- John (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it can work as a category. I don't know anything about categories. Maybe you could even add the info to People by educational institution category. For now, have it added to your userspace so it doesn't just get tossed, and maybe you'll find the time to re-work it. Nothing is ever really deleted permanently on WP anyway, just stored somewhere else. :) Rejectwater (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
