Difference between revisions of "LGPedia talk:Deletion Policy"

Revision as of 21:47, 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 would certainly object to this point. Speculation is a huge part of what LG15 is about and it is useful to collect prominent theories and related evidence in LGPedia so that people don't have to hunt through the forums to find information relating to their questions. Some of the most useful pages on this site are heavily speculative (e.g., canon). I think that speculation should not be deleted from LGPedia, provided it is clearly relevant. I do, however, think it is necessary to clearly denote what is speculative and to separate it from information that has been confirmed by the videos. --Treefunk 13:31, 2 December 2006 (CST)

• 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)

I think that in some cases the deletion tage should be changed to on "Merged" instead of "Deleted". I think its intuitively obvious that when two pages are merged that one of them will be deleted. I think the name of the final merged page should be then stated as part of the tag. The term deletion should be reserved for pages where the content is irrelevant etc and the content is goint go be removed along with the page.--modelmotion 14:59, 2 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)

"I propose the following process, spam pages, vandalism pages, empty pages, and inflammatory pages can be deleted by admins without an extended process." - I think that goes without saying, The only tricky one might be inflammatory but i think we have to trust the admins to use their discretion. However there should probably be an appeal process if someone feel that the deletion was not appropirate (which let hope never happens).--modelmotion 15:03, 2 December 2006 (CST)

"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" I think it would be helpful if there was a wider ranges on choices for the time period. I appreciated the 30 days that Tw game me with the location pages and i think with something like that you need a bit more time. In other instances 7 days would probably suffice. I think a range of 7 -30 days would be better and leave it up to the admins to chose whats appropriate for any given circumstance. Again their would be the right of appeal of the person feels that the time span chosen is inappropriate.--modelmotion 15:07, 2 December 2006 (CST)

"at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote"- by we I am assuming that you are referring to the admins. That probably the only way it could work practically. However I feel that the appeal process should involve an arbitration board consisting of both users and admins. Perhaps something like 3 users and 2 admins would be the best way to ensure we have a system of checks and balances. Remember this is only for an appeal and in most regular circumstances that should not impede the admins.--modelmotion 15:11, 2 December 2006 (CST)

By the way "seconding a motion" is a committe term that has specific meanings. I am assuming that Tw was just using the term to mean that he agrees because as far as I know there is no committee and no rules of order so in that context I do not know what he means.--modelmotion 15:14, 2 December 2006 (CST)

I like the process as it was described, but I have my doubts about the appeals system. I think the admins need to have final say. Especially if there is a 7-30 day long period to discuss, we should really avoid drawing it out any longer after that. Let's not make it onerous to delete articles that need to go. OwenIsCool 15:34, 2 December 2006 (CST)

I seriously doubt that there would be a lot of use of the appeal process, however its existence does give the system and escape valve for anyone who feel really committed. The deletion could go ahead on schedule but if the user felt it was not fair they would still have a mechanism to vent their case. I think it also keeps checks and balances in place and that was one of the smartest things the framers of the US constitution created, so why not learn from the best:)--modelmotion 15:47, 2 December 2006 (CST)