Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne bus route 601

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 September 29.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 07:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne bus route 601

[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)

Pardon my saying this - just another bus route in a big city. WP:ROTM. Does not have any notability, nor specific history, that makes this article relevant. Citations / references are either largely self referential (e.g. Public Transport Victoria), blogs (e.g. Daniel Bowen), or from Monash university (most of which are broken links with 404 errors). Incidentally, a similar article was AFDed in 2019, and this one might have been missed out. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne bus route 509. Delete rationale remains consistent. Ktin (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ktin (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ktin (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of bus routes in Melbourne#600–699 as per the other AfD. Most bus routes are non-notable and this one certainly fits that bill too. A lot of the sources are either self published or primary sources (such as the PTV website). Ajf773 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bus routes in Melbourne. If it's the busiest route in Melbourne (which is probably right) then there should be some mention of it (beyond one listing in a table) at that article. This would also enable the article to be recreated if further sources arise (there's currently not enough to establish notability in its own article). This is a good alternative to deletion, which is not warranted at this time.Weak keep - I'm satisfied that there is enough information to establish that the route is one of Melbourne's most important bus routes. The notability is pretty borderline, but I'm willing to change my !vote to a weak keep to allow the article to be improved to justify its notability. Deus et lex (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did you target me on purpose just because I left a comment at WP:ITN/C you didn't like? Doesn't seem like a coincidence that I commented on a nomination there yesterday that you responded to, and then just a few hours later you find an article I wrote and try to get it deleted. – numbermaniac 01:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As for the 404 links, those are now resolved. Both were archived on web.archive.org when they were live, so I have added those links to the references as archive URLs. – numbermaniac 02:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of the more significant bus routes in suburban Melbourne as it takes the place of a railway stub to the University which was never constructed. If this bus service were dropped, there would be significant and noisy uproar and protests -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Whiteguru: - do you have any independently sourced material on the importance of this bus route? If you can show me some to demonstrate notability I might be inclined to reconsider my merge !vote. Deus et lex (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think the delete rationale is consistent with the 509 article at all. That article was doomed from the start, because its "significance" was that it was the shortest bus route in Melbourne - if anything, that makes it one of the least useful or noteworthy bus routes in the city. It was also an extremely short stub, barely even 2 paragraphs long. This bus route, the 601, is much more significant than that one, for being the bus route with the highest number of passengers in the city (even though it's over 25 km away from the centre of Melbourne). I also disagree with the idea that this route has no "unique history" - as the article states, the queues of students at the Huntingdale station became so unbearably long to the point where the university actually had to pay up and fund their own bus route, just to alleviate the lines of students that were present every morning. That seems like a reasonably unique history to me. I don't think this article is "run of the mill" coverage at all. – numbermaniac 14:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this note numbermaniac. However, there are no notable secondary and independently sourced material that seems to justify the notability of this route. I am sure the bus serves an important function for the university students (as do most bus routes to any university). That the university funded the bus so that students didnt have to stand in long lines, speaks well of the university, but, that act in itself does not make it notable, and of significance to include in an encyclopedia. The best path here would be a delete and a redirect to List of bus routes in Melbourne#600–699. Ktin (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar @Whiteguru:, @Numbermaniac: - I'm still willing to reconsider my merge !vote if you can show me some sources on the importance of the bus route. Can you find anything? Deus et lex (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it counts, but here are some articles from state newspaper The Age that mention the high patronage and popularity of the route: [1] [2]. This article also mentioned the high number of people travelling to the campus and briefly mentioned that the route 601 was about to begin a month after the article was written. – numbermaniac 06:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks - the first one establishes it is the busiest route, and the others indicate it (along with the 401) is a notable bus route for Melbourne (albeit in the context of the proposed rail or tram extensions). I'm inclined to change to a weak keep to err on the side of caution, but the article is going to need to be properly sourced and enough information to demonstrate notability in the meantime. Deus et lex (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already given Meterkinx (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meterkinx, Sorry to say this. None of the above posts provide any reference(s) that establishes WP:NOTABILITY. If there are any a) independent b) significant (non trivial) and c) reliable sources that can be used to establish notability, I will be the first to withdraw this AfD. Unfortunately, none exists at this time. I also did search outside of the references given on this article page, and found nothing. Ktin (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a public transport directory. Also satisfied with merging/redirecting to a relevant list of bus routes. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Stifle. We are not a directory of bus routes. Simply being busy does not indicate notability, and I don't think the sources are sufficiently in-depth to indicate encyclopedic notability. In terms of WP:GNG, multiple articles from the same source are generally regarded as one source for the purpose of establishing notability. And as well, The Age is a Melbourne newspaper, so it's local with respect to the route. There's no coverage outside the local area that would satisfy the portion of WP:N that calls for "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2020 (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.