Zan Perrion (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears that this article may have been deleted without an accurate discussion of the number of sources, their depth of coverage and their availability regarding the subject.

• The first AfD for the article resulted in keep based upon the sources presented therein. The second AfD resulted in delete, apparently without a discussion regarding the availability of sources about the subject.
• This subject appears to meet or pass WP:BASIC. Here are some sources that confirm this [1], [2], [3], [4]. Several are non-English; Translate.google.com may be useful to read them in English.
• Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability and depth of coverage of reliable sources, rather than just those that may be present in an article.

Also note that there's a working version of the page, which I had userfied, located at User:Northamerica1000/Zan Perrion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care for the topic at all. That said, there now seem to be enough sources to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin I am neutral on the matter; if the community has found enough sources to pass WP:NPERSON, then that's that; if not, that's also that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation The available sources appear to reach WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (corrected name)

This is a new DRV request, posed with less explanation of background than yesterday's request for same. Please do focus on the content of the articles and the wikipedia policies. Please restore both Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) and Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio) (corrected). These have both been deleted several times, for no reason valid by any speedy deletion criteria. Editors who expressed support for restoration, in previous discussions including 2 DRVs, include Cbl62 and Mercy11 at Nyttend's talk page within this discussion, RyanVesey and AutomaticStrikeout in first DRV of January 4, 2013 and Hobit in second DRV of February 10, 2013. I see no reason that these should not be immediately restored. Please do restore them both. doncram 01:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not restored the Chesterville school because its sitting at User:Doncram/Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). Note that this hasn't been deleted but has been moved. Presumably the nom is requesting permission to move it to mainspace. There is no article at the Cohocton link and never has been so please advise which article you are referencing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, i left an S out of one name. One, partially restored but omitting valid history, is at User:Doncram/Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio), other is at User:Doncram/Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio). They have both been deleted from mainspace by move to userspace without leaving a redirect, i.e. by administrator tool use that deletes the mainspace location. Click on one of the redlinks to see: "A page with this title has previously been deleted." I believe that a non-admin editor cannot move and delete the mainspace item. Also they have both been move protected in Userspace. That constitutes deletion from mainspace. The request is indeed for the articles to be restored to mainspace, with their edit history included. --doncram 04:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore, These were deleted as copyvio and they do not seem to be. The original page for Chesterville which were incorrectly deleted as G12 contain a reference to the photocopied page posted from the Registry Information system, and which is US-PD. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/64000614_text ; (I have not yet found the other). Material paraphrased from there or even quoted would be not just fair use, but proper use of free content. The full article content for one of these was not restored to docram's user space, and I do not know why that was done--apparently under the argument that it was G12. I'm therefore not restoring it immediately, pending Nyttends explantion of the copyvio, because I might be misunderstanding. It would seem at any rate that there would not be the slightest objection possible on grounds of copyvio for moving the existing content and adding the reference. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The National Registry nomination forms are not created by the Park Service, but by specialists working for the state (or local) historic preservation offices, so they're definitely not PD-US. Some may be PD, if they were work-for-hire and the state considers its work PD, but Ohio does not appear to be one of them, per the copyright notice at the bottom of http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/index.aspx. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, but I'm not sure about the copyright status of what is filled out on an official US government form, and I wonder if we've discussed it. In any case, the present user p. is not copyvio, and the nomination form is a reliable source for it, so that version can certainly be moved back. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed at length. One time was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 43#Nomination forms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as DGG notes, there is no copyvio, and there never was any copyvio. And this and most NRHP nom forms are not in the public domain, but are a great, reliable sources that I have linked from thousands of NRHP articles. --doncram 02:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The quoted sentence and closely paraphrased material that led to the copyvio concern (which is related to some of the deleted versions that are in the page history for Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio), not the history for the current userspace version) weren't from the NRHP nom form that is cited in the article. These items were referenced to Ohio Historic Places Dictionary, ISBN 9781878592705 (page preview available to me on Google Books at [5]). The content is on pages 1076 and 1077 of the book. In reviewing that source today, I discovered an issue that wasn't raised in connection with the page deletion, but is worth noting: The sentence that was quoted verbatim actually isn't about Union School, but rather was a description of the Old Bartlett and Goble Store described earlier on page 1076. --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's previously been understood and discussed. As I have noted several times, there was a google-search-page garble-up in a search I ran that showed me the quote applied to this place, when the Ohio Places Dictionary preview would not show the relevant pages (the preview randomly allows vs. disallows specfic page views). Or call it an editing error on my part. Note I specifically invited Nyttend to check the article, as I believed he would own a full copy of the dictionary; he did not respond to that invitation. Since the information supplied seemed slightly off (the Dictionary called it a commercial building as I recall), rather than paraphrasing it, I explicitly quoted it (as if to say "sic", it is them not Wikipedia editor saying this). It was never a copyvio, it was a 10 word quote valid under fair use, explaining why a place was deemed NRHP notable. Again, this is all moot, since the quote is not to be restored into the mainspace article. Technically, the entire edit history should be restored, including the (incorrect) application of the quote) to showing valid history of the article per Wikipedia crediting standards. I do request the full restoration, although I don't care terribly because the quote is not to be included into the article. --doncram 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• restore I'm unclear if there was a valid speedy reason earlier, but there doesn't seem to be one now. So restore to mainspace without prejudice to an AfD. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there never was a valid speedy delete reason, as has been established in the previous linked discussions. Thanks. --doncram 02:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less sure of that, but thankfully it doesn't matter--there being no speedy criteria met is all we need. That said, I'd urge you to keep your comments here to a minimum. DRV is a very conservative place and anything that looks like casting aspersions could get this shut down again. I realize that isn't your intent, but I'd still urge that none-the-less. The nice effect of that is that DRV is a fairly drama-free zone and the right thing almost always gets done. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]