Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Motors streetcar conspiracy


 * 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   keep per WP:SNOW, not a single policy-based reason given for deletion. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

General Motors streetcar conspiracy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is terribly biased and is slandering General Motors. It quotes references, these however couldn't be called objective. The article also completely ignores the fact that after the war people in the US became richer and preferred much more comfortable way of commmuting - a car thus crowded streetcars became obsolete. SHAMAN 19:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * keep The reasons given are grounds for rewriting the article, not deleting it. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - bloody hell, are you a GM employee (or boss) Peter? This conspiracy very clearly meets WP:GNG. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. As the main author of the current text, (which has been broadly stable for about 2 years) I find it strange that this forceful complaint has come out of the blue, with no attempt at discussion on the talk list and supported by claims that appear groundless. I also note that the complainant has not contributed to either the article or the talk page for the past 500 edits except to insist on this banner.
 * To quote from the article in a couple of places to indicate the current balance:
 * " Both Quinby and Snell argued that the deliberate destruction of streetcars was part of a larger strategy to push the United States into automobile dependency.[1] Others say that independent economic factors brought about changes in the transit system, one writer going so far as to accuse Snell and others of falling into simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusions.[2] Other acknowledged contributory causes include the Great Depression, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, labor unrest, market forces, rapidly increasing traffic congestion, urban sprawl, taxation policies that favored private vehicle ownership, and general enthusiasm for the automobile."
 * "A number of analyses have suggested that the eventual replacement of electric-powered street cars with buses was inevitable and indeed occurred within the same timeframe in several other cities where NCL was not involved.[n 17] It has been suggested that the ultimate reach of GM's conspiracy extended to approximately 10% of all transit systems,[23] but the areas affected by GM's interference include 7 of the currently largest 9 metropolitan areas in the country."
 * "Others have suggested that streetcars were naturally replaced by the private automobile and the bus following the development of reliable internal combustion engines. These include Cliff Slater[n 18] and also by Randal O'Toole."
 * "According to Snell's testimony the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad line in New York was profitable until it was acquired and converted to diesel trains.[n 19] In reality the line had been in financial difficulty for years and had filed for bankruptcy in 1935.[31] Ironically, the rail company had itself been indicted in 1914 on a charge of "conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce by acquiring the control of practically all the transportation facilities of New England".[32]"
 * "GM Killed the Red cars in Los Angeles".[n 19] In reality Pacific Electric Railway (who operated the 'red cars') had been hemorrhaging routes as traffic congestion got much worse with growing prosperity and car ownership levels after the end of World War II long before GM became involved in 1953.[n 20]
 * Also... notice that all of this persons last 500 edits (except this one as far as I can see) have been of articles about makes and models of motorcars!
 * Personally I would suggest that we remove the banner from this article as a matter of urgency. I note that it was been viewed nearly 10,000 times in the past week. I would hate for 10,000 visitors in the next week to believe that there were serious issues with the article. -- PeterEastern (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to be "objective", though most of them in the article meet this mark. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs some ce work but should be kept. As for the cites, overall they meet the RS standard, as Binksternet states. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Unquestionably this is both a historical and still viable current article. The damage caused by this conspiracy, the absence of public transportation in the big cities of the United States, the pollution, traffic and the very function of our society are dealing with the residual of the conspiracy.  I sit today just feet from an abandoned easement left by the destruction of these public transit lines.  Mr. Snell's 1974 summation is very true today.  This is a well sourced article, showing not only the numerous documented statements, but the courts decision that this was General Motors own doing.  Numerous editors have bargained for each point in the text, opposing views have been thoroughly sorted over years of consensus editing.  Wikipedia's only fault from that consensus is the recent renaming of the article to single out General Motors in the title, while leaving its co-conspirators in an unnamed mention deeper in the prose of the article. Trackinfo (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs some ce work but should be kept. As for the cites, overall they meet the RS standard, as Binksternet states. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Unquestionably this is both a historical and still viable current article. The damage caused by this conspiracy, the absence of public transportation in the big cities of the United States, the pollution, traffic and the very function of our society are dealing with the residual of the conspiracy.  I sit today just feet from an abandoned easement left by the destruction of these public transit lines.  Mr. Snell's 1974 summation is very true today.  This is a well sourced article, showing not only the numerous documented statements, but the courts decision that this was General Motors own doing.  Numerous editors have bargained for each point in the text, opposing views have been thoroughly sorted over years of consensus editing.  Wikipedia's only fault from that consensus is the recent renaming of the article to single out General Motors in the title, while leaving its co-conspirators in an unnamed mention deeper in the prose of the article. Trackinfo (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs some ce work but should be kept. As for the cites, overall they meet the RS standard, as Binksternet states. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Unquestionably this is both a historical and still viable current article. The damage caused by this conspiracy, the absence of public transportation in the big cities of the United States, the pollution, traffic and the very function of our society are dealing with the residual of the conspiracy.  I sit today just feet from an abandoned easement left by the destruction of these public transit lines.  Mr. Snell's 1974 summation is very true today.  This is a well sourced article, showing not only the numerous documented statements, but the courts decision that this was General Motors own doing.  Numerous editors have bargained for each point in the text, opposing views have been thoroughly sorted over years of consensus editing.  Wikipedia's only fault from that consensus is the recent renaming of the article to single out General Motors in the title, while leaving its co-conspirators in an unnamed mention deeper in the prose of the article. Trackinfo (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - per above, WP:SNOW, and possible bad-faith nom. Ansh666 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.