Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modular agile transit

Modular agile transit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The lead says "While not yet a standardized system, MAT represents an emerging idea in transportation research to address challenges". I'm not sure that an evolving, conceptual notion meets WP Notability requirements. The article reads like ad brochure for a startup ... lots of bullet points. If there is no concrete product; and if there is no international standard ... what is there? A research project? Not sure that qualifies as encyclopedic.

There are several sources listed at bottom of article, but most are not _about_ the "Modular agile transit" ... most of the sources simply support individual facts stated in the article (but the sources do not mention the M.A.T.). Noleander (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly surprised to see such a poor article from such a long-time editor. Cite 1 has the wrong DOI# but should link to [1], which is a computer model about modular vehicles but is not about "agile" transit or an actual system. 2 is some totally irrelevant software source, 3 is about carsharing not transit, 4 seems relevant but is also just a model, 5 has a title that's merely about electric buses but the DOI link goes to something else, 6 seems relevant but is also just a computer model and does not use "agile", 7 is a good book but irrelevant, and 8 is also irrelevant. So the article is a lot of fluff, unsourced statements, and ref-bomb material. What is going on here? Like I understand what the article's getting at, but since it's just a research concept I agree with nom that this reads as a student article rather than something that should have a standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 02:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The faulty citations are characteristic of LLM output. With that in mind, I have to wonder if the rest of the article is LLM-generated as well. Omphalographer (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking the same for this author's Repast (funeral), which I also AFDed. Reywas92^Talk 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As the article’s primary author, I appreciate the feedback in this AfD and have significantly revised the article to address the raised concerns. The original version was overly complex and included some irrelevant sources, which I acknowledge made it read like a promotional piece. I have rewritten it into a concise Start-class article, focusing only on the core concept of modular transit supported by two peer-reviewed sources directly discussing the topic. These sources establish notability per WP:GNG by providing significant coverage of modular transit systems in reputable journals (Transportation Research Parts C and A). I've removed unsourced claims, bullet points, and promotional language to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS and clarified that MAT is a research concept, not a product, addressing concerns about its "evolving notion" status. While not a deployed system, the concept’s coverage in academic literature makes it encyclopedic, similar to other research-stage transport concepts like Hyperloop. I'm open to further suggestions for improvement. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for eliminating the fluff, unsourced content, and ref-bomb sources. But as I implied there's now not enough content or sources to justify a standalone article on simply a research concept. Since both sources are about autonomous transit, Vehicular automation#Buses seems like a better place for a couple sentences to include the primary sources. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems reasonable, Thanks.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]