Mass automobility: The article also introduces the concept of mass automobility as something distinct from automobility which may constitute original research.  Darrelljon ( talk ) 14:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Transportation ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without prejudice.  Reads like a student essay (as created in an editor's only contribution ), with disjointed content, jumping in one paragraph from fast-food restaurants to appliance mass-production.  Agree with nom that this is too overlapping and not cohesive enough.  Much of the content is actually about Suburbanization rather than automobility, but nothing is good enough quality to merge somewhere or keep.  Even if the previous AFD found sources on the titular concept, that does not mean that we have to keep this as (poorly) written.  Just because AFD is not cleanup doesn't mean this is a even good basis for a cleaned-up article.  Reywas92 Talk 16:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a neologism, a claim that was debunked in the last AFD discussion, and it's not original research as professor James J. Flink at UCI, out of what seems like many people, has written on this specific topic for decades, including for starters xyr 1975 paper Mass automobility: an urban reform that backfired that gets the odd citation here and there.  They even seem to agree with what's in the article at hand.   Talking of the 1970s and what happened then, contemporary to Flink's paper, Alan A. Altshuler 's 1984 book for example says "The initial shift in expectations came with the dawning realization of what mass automobility on a world scale might mean for the earth's resource base and atmosphere." and proceeds to talk about pollution, safety, and fossil fuels consumption.  And here we have an article with a "Negative Consequences" section talking about shifts that happened in the 1960s and 1970s such as anti-pollution and safety measures.  Professors Gary S. Cross pf PSU and Rick Szostak of UA talked about how "Mass automobility led to the decline of public transportation and encouraged greater dispersion of workplaces and residential neighborhoods." in their 1995 book.  And here we have an article that talks about the effects upon suburbanization. Then there are things that Wikipedia doesn't cover yet about mass automobility, such as professor David Gartman of the University of South Alabama in his 1994 book linking it to democratization, and a perceived connection to social mobility as evidenced by movies of the time such as the 1911 The Girl and the Chauffer . The problem here is not the article, but the fact that you are unwilling to find sources and work on it instead of nominating it for deletion multiple times with the debunked "neologism" rationale. Keep . Uncle G ( talk ) 11:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We have an article Effects of cars (which has 178 edits and 646 views) which covers negative impact on the environment. ' Mass transit ' is a redirect to public transport. Darrelljon ( talk ) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Number of edits and views has no relationship with notability. Please stop making that argument. Star Mississippi 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also Mass Rail Transit , Mass Rapid Transit and Mass Rapid Transit System redirect or disambig to other articles. As does Mass consumption , Mass manipulation and Mass opinion . Darrelljon ( talk ) 06:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Did Flink, Altshuler, Cross, Szostak or Gartman distinguish mass automobility from any of the other concepts?-- Darrelljon ( talk ) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing here that is not better covered in existing articles. Just because something is referred to differently by a prof. doesn't mean it is a different concept, much less one with significant coverage. Also concerned about giving undue weight to the profs that prefer to use this term. ForksForks ( talk ) 16:54, 28 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete