Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital – This is getting bad tempered so closing early. Endorsed. Take it to ARCA if you need clarification of the remedy but DRV isn't going to fight arbcom. As for the material in the main article? A null edit in the history noting that some material came from RAN is sufficient for our attibutation rules. – SpartazHumbug!08:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
According to the history the page was created in February 2015. It's not obvious when it was moved to mainspace, but the topic ban on article creation was imposed in 2011 and confirmed by the arbitration committee in March 2013 and October 2015. I don't see how the page could have been created before the ban was imposed, unless it was a copy and paste move from somewhere else. Hut 8.518:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The history here is more complicated than I thought. This is what happened:
5 February: RAN creates this page in his own userspace.
8 February: material from the then-userspace page is added to an already existing mainspace article.
18 October: Rich Farmbrough moves the page to mainspace, with a summary of "Move to mainsape for cleaner attribution". He immediately turns it into a redirect to Stuyvesant Polyclinic and made this edit to the target. It looks like this was done in order to have clearer attribution of the content that RAN had previously added to mainspace elsewhere, rather than to actually have this page as a standalone article.
25 November: RAN replaces the redirect with an article, presumably because the material had been removed from Stuyvesant Polyclinic in an edit war. Two people revert to restore the redirect on 25 and 26 November on the grounds that the RFD is still ongoing, RAN reverts them.
27 November: page deleted under G5.
The central issue is whether RAN created this article by replacing a redirect with the article's content. I think he did: redirects are not articles, and replacing a not-article with an article is creating an article. The arbitration committee seems to agree with this, so endorse. At most this could be a redirect to Stuyvesant Polyclinic unless someone other than RAN is prepared to take responsibility for it, but as the RFD was running strongly in favour of deletion at the time that probably isn't a good idea either. Hut 8.517:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That will require further clarification from ARBCOM. Their restriction banned me from turning a redirect into a new article where no article existed before. Here I simply reversed back to a !legally created article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was created in my user space and migrated by a second person into mainspace. The previous bans allowed me to create articles in user space and once someone approved, that person could migrate them to mainspace. User:Javert, or some similar name, was upset that I was doing that and appealed to ARBCOM to stop me from doing it, just a week or so ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't clear to me whether, in the October 2015 amendment, Arbcom regarded themselves as clarifying the 2011 restriction or creating a new one.[1] If it was a clarification then the restriction on new drafts relates back to 2011. If it is a new restriction to change a previous one now viewed as more limited, the restriction is recent ... but your mileage will vary. Thincat (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Start a clarification to find out if the restrictions have been restricted or expanded. The clarification needs to be further clarified.
Endorse for now, but ask for clarification, if this didn't qualify, it didn't do so for purely technical reasons. Send it to Arbcom for clarification, if they are happy that RAN acted within the letter and spirit of his restrictions then it should be restored. Lankiveil(speak to me)03:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
If, as Hut 8.5 says, the page was moved into mainspace in February 2015 (or indeed at any time between 23 November 2013 and 15 October 2015), then the rule in effect was this one. In this case the person moving it into mainspace takes responsibility for it. Logically, this invalidates the G5. It is of course entirely possible that other speedy deletion reasons may have applied.—S MarshallT/C16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have the benefit of Hut 8.5's chronology (thanks!), I can see how much of a bloody mess this is. If there's content in the mainspace or article history by RAN then it needs to be clearly attributed to him, so the outcome I'd be most comfortable with is restore redirect.—S MarshallT/C18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a lot of point in that, to be honest. The edit history already attributes the content to RAN. The only thing we gain by having the redirect is the edits in which RAN developed the content, but there were only two before the content was added to Stuyvesant Polyclinic and one of those was just putting in some extra footnotes. Hut 8.520:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
