Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on cars powered by gasoline engines 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War on cars powered by gasoline engines conspiracy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A conspiracy theory which is just a WP:SOAPBOX piece. Essentially composed solely of WP:OR and is impossible to verify. I declined a speedy delete nomination as it doesn't fit any of the CSD criteria. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like someone trying to push anti-Obama views. The article is patently junk, with irrelevant anecdotes, and there is literally only one source that even remotely support the title. [1] looks like a very tabloid-esque piece, and I really don't think it qualifies as a RS. Nowhere is there anything talking about a conspiracy, in reality; even the above source doesn't. Being anti-petrol isn't the same thing as a conspiracy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is POV-pushing junk that should barely be allowed to remain for the week this will take to go through. Ducknish (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure synthesis. Even the dubious source mentioned above by Lukeno94 won't help because it's not discussing the putative conspiracy theory, it's claiming that there is a conspiracy, making it primary even if it were reliable, which it almost certainly is not, as stated. Nuke it. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete soapbox, OR, synthesis, etc. Great example of what shouldn't be an article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The phrase "Original Research" is often bandied about wrongly at WP — this is what it actually looks like. Original essay pushing a novel, fringe POV, sourced out to look pretty, but actually a creation from left field. Carrite (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like deep right field to me...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2013 (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.