Difference between revisions of "LGPedia talk:Deletion Policy"

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(The Process)
(The Process)
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
I propose the following process, spam pages, vandalism pages, empty pages, and inflammatory pages can be deleted by admins without an extended process.  For other pages, I propose that they be nominated for deletion, and then there's a one-week period for discussion and improvement (if possible), at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:57, 2 December 2006 (CST)
 
I propose the following process, spam pages, vandalism pages, empty pages, and inflammatory pages can be deleted by admins without an extended process.  For other pages, I propose that they be nominated for deletion, and then there's a one-week period for discussion and improvement (if possible), at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:57, 2 December 2006 (CST)
 +
 +
:I second this motion -- [[User:Twjaniak|Twjaniak]] 12:15, 2 December 2006 (CST)

Revision as of 18:15, 2 December 2006

It's become apparent that we could use a deletion policy here at the LGpedia. Let's respectfully discuss ideas here.--JayHenry 13:25, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Articles that have complaints brought against them, need to be either defended by its editors with citable facts or else yield to the edits of the complainant who must introduce citable facts of their own.
Any article that is an inflammatory expression of opinion should be deleted as well -- Twjaniak 13:44, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Good idea Jayhenry..--Iris2009

This could be added to the LGpedia page where several other questions are answered.--modelmotion 13:32, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I added a section to the LGpedia page that direct pple here for discussion. --modelmotion 14:44, 1 December 2006 (CST)

  • I feel strongly that articles should be relevant to lonelygirl15. There are a tremendous amount of articles that are completely unrelated to lonelygirl15 or are based entirely off speculation.
  • While I'm not suggesting we eliminate all speculation from the LGpedia, I don't think that every single speculative item deserves its own page. This makes the LGpedia cluttered, and for users who are here for information, it has become impossible to tell what information is relevant, and what information is not.
  • I also feel strongly that one valid reason that the community can decide to delete a page is for purposes of reorganization. We have a huge amount of very, very bad articles, simply because there is not enough information to justify everything having its own article. I think the community should be able to decide that information should be reorganized.--JayHenry 15:24, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I think we must consider the context of LG in the matrix of our current social/religious/scientific society. The Creators clearly wanted us to think and they have accomplished that. In some cases Mesh himself maybe the only person who actually knows whether or not a train of thought is relevant and even then he may be reading LGpedia to find out where fans are taking the clues in their own research. All this needs to be considered before deleting a page and perhaps Mesh could act as a resource in the process.--modelmotion 15:43, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I think one thing we could use is a "controversial tag" like wikipedia uses. That might be a good starting point for content that is not blatantly offensive. Let the users discuss the controversy openly. As that develops it should become clear if the page deserves a deletion tag or not.--modelmotion 18:13, 1 December 2006 (CST)

The Process

I propose the following process, spam pages, vandalism pages, empty pages, and inflammatory pages can be deleted by admins without an extended process. For other pages, I propose that they be nominated for deletion, and then there's a one-week period for discussion and improvement (if possible), at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote.--JayHenry 11:57, 2 December 2006 (CST)

I second this motion -- Twjaniak 12:15, 2 December 2006 (CST)