- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Amol. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Moalagh Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by a sock of an account with a known history of creating copyright violations (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی. As per WP:Copyright violations: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately."
Additional evidence that this article is a copyright violation: the external link used in this article (a website which is currently down) was the main source used by the sockmaster for their copyright violations. Singularity42 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on. Judging by the picture, this bridge certainly looks like it could be notable. We have many smaller bridges than this in Wikipedia. Also the French Wikipedia has this article. Let's see if we can find some info on this bridge. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Farsi wiki has it too. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with the article being re-written. But as it currently stands, it must be presumed that the current version is a copyvio. WP:G5 may also apply. Singularity42 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 02:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I hate writing this, as I am the one who usually tries to improve articles on architectural structures, saving them for deletion. However, here we have to face three facts: (i) there are no English reliable sources in the internet that even confirm the existence of the bridge, not even talking on proving notability (note that there are sources for Davazdah Pelleh Bridge in the same city); (ii) both Farsi sources in the article are dead; (iii) the article creator is not a trusted user and has a record of introducing copyright violation to the articles. Therefore I do not see any other solution but to delete the article ant to write another one once sources are available.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see evidence of the article creator being involved in a copyright violation. There is a clue on the user's talk page that an article with which he/she was associated was later deleted as a copyright violation, but the deletion removed the edit history. Even if further evidence can be produced, this is still only one copyright violation, which does not establish an "extensive history" suggested by the nomination. Further the nomination claims that this article was "created by a sock of an account". Evidence was presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی, but the SPI did not confirm that the article creator is a sock. Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the archive for the SPI investigation, you will see that initially, the administrator thought more evidence was required to connect Mirasir with the sockmaster. However, that admin changed his mind when the next SPI case was brought, as the latest sock added another connection between the two. Personally, I think there is no doubt they are one and the same, but I would be happy to file another SPI if you want an admin to block on behavioural evidence (due to proxies, Checkuser cannot confirm).
- I've started a new SPI on Mirasir at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی. Given the behavioural evidence, I would be surprised if anyone thought Mirasir was not a sock. Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, you are wanting us to !vote delete as a potential copyright vio. Why should we find that this is a potential copyvio if no admin is willing to speedy delete the article as a copyvio? Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the policy I quoted with my nomination. If an editor is a known copyright violator, than their contributions can be assumed as copyright violations without further evidence. I'm not the first to say that about this editor. See, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower Tomb Sayyed Se Ton, which was an AfD for an article written by another sock (which this user then tried to re-create under a different article name). Singularity42 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it work to put a speedy delete request on the article? Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if it G12 applies, since it is not an obvious copyvio. However, now that the latest SPI has resulted in the creator of this article being blocked as a sock of a user who was indef'd prior to this article being created, and there has been no other substantial edits, I have tagged it for speedy deletion under G5. Singularity42 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it work to put a speedy delete request on the article? Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the policy I quoted with my nomination. If an editor is a known copyright violator, than their contributions can be assumed as copyright violations without further evidence. I'm not the first to say that about this editor. See, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower Tomb Sayyed Se Ton, which was an AfD for an article written by another sock (which this user then tried to re-create under a different article name). Singularity42 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, you are wanting us to !vote delete as a potential copyright vio. Why should we find that this is a potential copyvio if no admin is willing to speedy delete the article as a copyvio? Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started a new SPI on Mirasir at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی. Given the behavioural evidence, I would be surprised if anyone thought Mirasir was not a sock. Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- have nearly identical clouds. One possibility is that the same person took both pictures. Note that the Panoramio picture provides a geo-___location. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Amol without prejudice to recreation Created by sock puppet of a blocked editor known for copyright violation with the current version failing WP:V, so nothing is lost to start fresh. Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.