Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 5: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:16, 5 October 2006 editPolarscribe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,997 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 09:46, 5 October 2006 edit undoThryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators98,905 edits →[]: personally I'd undelete, but am inviting comment from JimboNext edit →
Line 19: Line 19:
*'''Put frankly, I have no idea'''. It is generally accepted that you don't over-rule Jimmy when it comes to admin actions - many arbcom cases (the userbox wheel war comes to mind) have resulted in admins losing their administrative powers because they reverted Jimmy in a ]. I honestly don't think DRV is going to get anywhere on this topic. The only way this will serve a purpose is if {{user2|Jimbo Wales}} reads it, and decides to act upon arguments (if they are presented) to restore. Having never seen the article, and not knowing terribly much about Jimmy's action in this case (I've read the talk page of ], that's about all), I have no idea. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Put frankly, I have no idea'''. It is generally accepted that you don't over-rule Jimmy when it comes to admin actions - many arbcom cases (the userbox wheel war comes to mind) have resulted in admins losing their administrative powers because they reverted Jimmy in a ]. I honestly don't think DRV is going to get anywhere on this topic. The only way this will serve a purpose is if {{user2|Jimbo Wales}} reads it, and decides to act upon arguments (if they are presented) to restore. Having never seen the article, and not knowing terribly much about Jimmy's action in this case (I've read the talk page of ], that's about all), I have no idea. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*Per Daniel Bryant, this DRV is moot because overturning a Jimbo action is verboten. Take it up with him. ] 08:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC) *Per Daniel Bryant, this DRV is moot because overturning a Jimbo action is verboten. Take it up with him. ] 08:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*I've had a look at the article, and its not one that I would have speedied, and I'd possibly even have voted keep at an AfD. It does need a bit of tidying up and rewriting to bring it into line with Misplaced Pages style - but not much (admins may like to contrast it to ). I personally recommend '''undelete''', but as reverting Jimbo being an admin is a grey area (reverting him acting as an editor is fine, reverting him acting as head honcho is a Bad Thing.), I will leave a note on his talk page inviting him to comment here. ] 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:46, 5 October 2006

< October 4 October 6 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

5 October 2006

Arch Coal

Arch Coal was deleted by Jimbo Wales with the edit summery of "rm corporate spam." This content was created by a commercial source and released under GFDL. But it was placed in good faith within the rules of wikipedia by an unconnected third party (myself). The content was legitimate and the article was neutral. I haven't been able to identify what, if any, policy the article violated... so I request the article be undeleted and a proper AFD could be preformed to gain community consensus. ---J.S (t|c) 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Put frankly, I have no idea. It is generally accepted that you don't over-rule Jimmy when it comes to admin actions - many arbcom cases (the userbox wheel war comes to mind) have resulted in admins losing their administrative powers because they reverted Jimmy in a wheel-war situation. I honestly don't think DRV is going to get anywhere on this topic. The only way this will serve a purpose is if Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · count) reads it, and decides to act upon arguments (if they are presented) to restore. Having never seen the article, and not knowing terribly much about Jimmy's action in this case (I've read the talk page of User:MyWikiBiz, that's about all), I have no idea. Daniel.Bryant 07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Daniel Bryant, this DRV is moot because overturning a Jimbo action is verboten. Take it up with him. FCYTravis 08:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've had a look at the article, and its not one that I would have speedied, and I'd possibly even have voted keep at an AfD. It does need a bit of tidying up and rewriting to bring it into line with Misplaced Pages style - but not much (admins may like to contrast it to ). I personally recommend undelete, but as reverting Jimbo being an admin is a grey area (reverting him acting as an editor is fine, reverting him acting as head honcho is a Bad Thing.), I will leave a note on his talk page inviting him to comment here. Thryduulf 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)