Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit

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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit

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

This is essentially an ad for a particular type of guided bus, which appears, like some other Chinese wundermaschinen, to be as much conceptual as real. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been covered by Channel News Asia, in The Independent, and by China Daily. I suspect they're all recycling the same story, presumably from Xinhua. And that's without looking at media in Mandarin. It's not really a very wonderful machine (it's self-driving technology applied to a guided busway). What makes it notable is that it's the metro system of a city of a million people (for comparison, the USA only has 9 cities larger than that). CRRC is a major, world-class manufacturer of bus and rail systems and has a large factory in Zhuzhou, so I think this thing is very likely to get built. An analogy: if newspapers reported Boeing was planning to start self-driving helicopter service in Seattle, it would be notable. Matt's talk 18:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, rather, that they all are recycling information from CRRC. (I'd also add that, unless you are making a narrow point about city limits, the US alone has a good 50 metro areas that big, many of which naturally break down to further transit watersheds over a million.) It isn't "the metro system" of anything yet, and perhaps an article -as opposed to a section in some other article - should not exist until it does. Anmccaff (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to avoid debates over "what is a city", so I just used our List of United States cities by population. That strategy obviously failed! And yes, I suspect a CRRC press release is the ultimate origin of this reporting, but it seems unlikely that The Independent and others would be on their circulation list, so I would speculate that a Xinhua wire report is the common point of origin. If so, Xinhua will have checked basic facts. But I haven't found it (yet). Matt's talk 21:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There really aren't any basic facts to check, are there? This is a work-in-progress which so far, IMS, has never left a figure-eight test loop; all of the reportage ultimately leads back to the manufacturer. That's not something that belongs on an encyclopedia yet. Anmccaff (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an ad, because it's author is not affiliated to the subject and raises some concerns about the use in ice and snow, which is shown in one of the simulations. A part of the test track is in operation, as shown in some videos. The system is similar to Phileas and de:Mettis, which have their own articles on Wikipedia. The article is important, because there is a lot of confusion, whether ART is driverless or just assisting the driver. The large number of references demonstrate the public interest. Wikipedia is clealy not "America first!" Thus, please keep and expand the article. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, no. Articulated buses, even with multiple sections, aren't new, and that's about all this shares with Phileas and de:Mettis.

Large numbers of "gee-whiz" technology articles prove nothing about a subjects encyclopedic notability; the amount of "flying car" crap found in certain magazines is an eternal illustration of that. Anmccaff (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know for a fact that all of the Chinese-based sources are recycling their information from a single source? I'm not saying that they are not recycling the info, but proof would be nice. Also, I see that Popular Mechanics (based in the US) is used as a source in the article, and I'm pretty sure they don't have any direct connections to Chinese newspapers or companies. BTW, I've always felt that Wikipedia has a "Commonwealth first!" slant to it, more than anything. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were the giveaway for me - I find it hard to believe all these outlets had photographers who stood in the same place. Matt's talk 21:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the solution would then be to replace the duplicate sources, and use the main source to replace their citations in the article. I don't think this article's shortcomings are enough to warrant its deletion, imo. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems notable enough to keep, and different enough that it couldn't be easily merged into another article. Useddenim (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by M.R.Forrester. Even if those sources are "recycling" information from another source, just by the fact they made the editorial decision to publish coverage on a certain topic is the whole point of WP:GNG and is what makes this topic notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources provided. Passes GNG. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:25, 5 August 2017 (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.