>Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research.
I think wiki clones have more to do with people wanting to run their own advertising.
I REALLY can't imagine this was the best decision in the long term.