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. Noting that the nominator has given the opinion that sourcing may be somewhat thinner in this article than desired and of poorer quality, I still see a consensus at this time to keep the article based on notability grounds raised by those in favour of retaining the article. (non-admin closure)StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes! 03:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has never really progressed beyond a glorified press release. Has the idea itself progressed beyond a demonstration? Qwirkle (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even, if this concept is not perceived to be the answer to the United States' traffic jams, there is no need to erase this courageous project from history. Please keep, because the English language Wikipedia should also address topics outside of mainstream USA. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with anything you mention here. The project is not “courageous”, it does not matter where it was made, or where it might be used. It’s a blip, and one based on COI sources. It is worth a footnote, not an article. Qwirkle (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sounds like the main concern here is notability. Although the majority of the sources are Chinese state-run publications, there is one instance of a prominent Western publication, Popular Mechanics, being referenced. That source's presence alone is enough, at minimum, to prevent this article from being deleted or merged with another article. Jackdude101talkcont 18:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Everything in PM isn’t notable. Qwirkle (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I see that in the previous AfD discussion from two years ago linked above (the result of which was "keep"), I also participated and gave a very similar reason for keeping it as my reason in this discussion. I will bring up the additional point that, per WP:Notability, notability is not temporary. I suggest that any prior AfD discussions be researched before a new one is made, as this is pretty much a DOA rehash of the previous discussion. Jackdude101talkcont 18:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any independent sourcing, not based on press releases on this, in the article or elsewhere?
Next, note that bare notability, assuming this meets that for arguments sake, does not in itself justify a separate article. Qwirkle (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added one new published reference from The Conversation authored by an Australian university professor who claims to have visited China and seen this new transportation system in person. The best case scenario for you at this point is that no consensus will be reached, in which case the article stays just as it would if the result becomes "keep". Please determine very carefully before you make your next reply whether it's going to be a valuable use of our time and your time to continue this discussion. Jackdude101talkcont 02:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is, in fact, the first piece of sourcing since the article was created that might justify a stand-alone article. The idea that a regurgitated press release in PM might is ludicrous; there are can-openers that meet that standard. Qwirkle (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being informed of a discussion with neutral language is not canvassing. Using that argument is the equivalent of throwing rocks because you have no bullets left. There are five "keeps" now in this discussion compared to your one "delete". You've lost; make peace with it. Jackdude101talkcont 02:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit is now running in circles (see here) strikes you as a neutral invitation to an AfD? Heh. Qwirkle (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nom fails to tell us which policy or guideline this article meets for inclusion and . The sources in the article still take it over the minimum threshold for WP:GNG. McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 18:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..that would because it doesdid not meet policies for inclusion, of course. Qwirkle (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a source, even if an overlapping source (with other issues.) Note that both are centered not on this system, but on Newman’s concept of “trackless tram”; this is not necessarily evidence for a separate article. Notice also that it is sourced to SCIRP -Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is an academic publisher of presumably peer-reviewed open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies of questionable quality.[1][2][3] Although it has an address in southern California, in reality it is a "Chinese operation".[4], to quote its Wiki article. That article is something that stands despite its publisher, rather than because of it. At best such articles represent theft from the authors, at worst they allow stuff which would not survive peer review to get an undue imprimatur. Doesnt it strike you as odd that all the sourcing for this is bad? Qwirkle (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of sources and what is mentioned by Phil Bridger. Bookscale (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, based on company press releases, and a piece from a predatory open access publisher[6] [accused]of using email spam to solicit papers for submission.[4]. Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jackdude101 (talk) there is a prominent Western publication, being referenced. That source's presence alone is enough for notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don;t know if my vote is really necessary at this point, but yeah. It's notable with good sources in and out of the U.S. --- GingeBro(talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 July 2019 (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.