561 (Transperth Bus Route): Steelkamp ( talk ) 04:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Steelkamp ( talk ) 04:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] does have significant coverage.  It's a bus route, and the article describes said route as well as start and end points.  Also has reference which links to the bus timetable and map.  Wikipedia's SIGCOV guideline states that an article must "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."  The article addresses the topic directly, by talking about the bus route itself.  It details the journey the route takes from start to finish.  And it also provides a reference to the timetable/map of the route, meaning there is no need for additional research.  For these reasons this article should remain open.  There is nothing wrong with adding bus route articles to wikipedia as they are an important part of everyday transport, and this route in particular connects two important stations in the southern suburbs as well as the local school in Secret Harbour.  Rick Astlios ( talk ) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it is also a new article and more content (images/paragraphs) will be added in future if the article remains up Rick Astlios ( talk ) 05:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You need more substantial sources than just a timetable and map, of which at least some should be independent sources .  As far as I'm aware, no such sources exist.  Steelkamp ( talk ) 05:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG as its only reference is to a timetable which is a primary source.  I couldn't find any other secondary reliable sources such as independent news articles from a Google search.  Fork99 ( talk ) 05:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Also, if for some reason this was decided to be kept, the title should be something like Perth bus route 561 in line with similar articles like Sydney bus route 333 and London Buses route 1 .  Fork99 ( talk ) 03:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It is difficult to see how any bus route could be notable, but this one certainly is not.  Bduke ( talk ) 05:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Bus routes can be notable, but this one does not have significant coverage from secondary sources and thus fails GNG.  Sounder Bruce 05:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - some Perth bus routes are in their historic context 'notable' at a stretch - the problem with a route like 561 there is buckley's chance of actually adequately providing WP:RS that actually are in places that might have something.  Google is a waste of time.  Trove might have had something, but the route is something that is less than 25 years old, and as a result, nothing short of the archives of the ticket and timetable newsletter might have something - but then they do look at the older era.   A possible sideway glimpse in a real live archive - https://slwa.wa.gov.au/pdf/ephemera/pr11903tragen.pdf which any of the Perth based editors could access if they had the interest to physically check - might have something, but the Secret Harbour locality (which has little of help in the article to identify when it was actually specifically developed as a locality) is 1984 + in age, which means that the chance of an easily accessible community news service for the area is also zilch, as it would require whichever newspaper to have locality specific news, which might have had comment about public transport...  The Sound Telegraph appears to have no interest in bus routes.   To assert notability of a bus route like this, is I am afraid to say, pointless.  JarrahTree 15:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Technically could be redirected to list of bus routes in Perth, Western Australia#500–599 but the article is really new and also dabbed so delete is reasonable.  gidonb ( talk ) 14:08, 23 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete