Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modular agile transit
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Modular agile transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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. Reywas92Talk 02:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)