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.
This article was created by Oanabay04 (talk·contribs), who was banned for massive copyright infringement. This is one of several articles he wrote dealing with SEPTA's diesel services on the Fox Chase Line. There isn't wholesale copyright infringement that I've been able to detect; I removed minor infringements last September. What concerns me is that when I checked the various citations he'd sprinkled in throughout the article I didn't find information which backed the assertions. Possible conclusions are that he just wrote an essay and sprinkled in citations to give a veneer of respectability, or he committed copyright infringement from some heretofore unknown source. Either way, I don't think the current article's history should stay on Wikipedia. The topic is absolutely notable, but it's covered for now on Fox Chase Line#Beyond Fox Chase. There's nothing in the current article which I'd feel safe merging.
Short version: the topic is notable but the current article is toxic and should be deleted as preventative measure, with no prejudice toward recreation from sources by a non-banned user. Mackensen(talk)23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoFox Chase Line#Beyond Fox Chase. Oanabay04's flagrant copyright violations are revolting enough, but the notability convinces me it's worth keeping and rewriting. Plus you did mention that you removed the copyvios. On the other hand, if you decided to delete it and I just restored it as a redirect, I hope the original version's tainted history won't show up. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is correct; administrators will be able to see the deleted revisions, but they won't merge with the redirect's history. Mackensen(talk)00:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DanTD (and I agree with the deletion the create the redirect method). It's a notable topic, probably with enough independent notability for its own article, but the mess that that sock-puppet-using, POV-pushing serial plagiarist left should be expunged from the public record. oknazevad (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can nominator provide examples of the false citations so I can confirm this? It seems these form the basis for this AfD so we need proof. DeVerm (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed most of them and tagged others in September: [1]. After that I gave up and moved on to other issues for a while. Unless you're local to Philadelphia or a devoted railfan I doubt you'll have access to the relevant sources and they're not available electronically (which is, in part, why Oanabay04's copyvios went undetected for so long). Mackensen(talk)02:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is a POV-fork by an editor with a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one. Anything of value in this article can be moved to the Fox Chase Line page. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination, though I'd like to see it recreated (or the section in the Fox Chase Line expanded) as soon as possible. Although some of the current sources might be valid and useful, it's probably best to redo the history with 100% certainty. (Incidentally, I did just upload File:Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line 1981 schedule.pdf which is a PD replacement for one of the fair-use images in the article.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2016 (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.
