Deletion of List of bus routes in Colchester

Comment: There is no argument that if this were a tram, subway or even trolley bus network then it would be seen as an inherently notable topic, being of significant importance and relevance to our encyclopaedic coverage of the settlement and a network of bus routes are equally important to a city. There was a comment a long way upthread regarding systems that had descended from streetcars. In the UK we call them trams, and Colchester had them between July 1904 and December 1926 (source: http://www.aspects.net/~markcol/colbus/fl_History_Col_Bus.htm), so it would seem that this system meets that suggested criterion for notability. Indeed were a tramway decommisioned today, it would not be encyclopaedic to ignore the bus network that succeeded it,  would suggest that ignoring it because it happened 80 years ago would be equally unencyclopaedic. Stopping our coverage of the system at any arbitrary point between then and now would be equally unprofessional (unless it's just to split it over more than one article for length issues, c.f. History of rail accidents (1950-1999
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENCY)

Comment: per , but also more importantly, because it's a list of bus routes and this is an encylopedia. Just like I don't expect to see an article about benzethonium chloride pinned up at my local train station, nor do I expect to find local transport advice on the pages of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: I don't intend to vote per my general stance in the Rfc. But if Stuart wants to start citing the Rfc in Afds he needs to get it closed with an independent summary. Second, if he wants to quote people's comments in it, he should inform them, as in my case he's got my meaning wrong - I was simply demonstrating their fixed nature, not their non-independence from authorities (and as said in the Rfc, there's not much point obsessing about that, as in all areas of the UK except London, subsidised networks mostly overlay commercial ones, the only difference is usually time of day). While subsidised services are designed by authorities, commercial ones aren't - but they have to registered and therefore cannot be changed willy nilly. Diversions, even long term ones, are irrelevant on that score. Whether these all appear on one map or several is generally pot luck and not indicative of anything. But I would tend to agree, maps are only usefull for verification, not asserting notability. I would finally note that Stuart has clearly stated he has no intention of looking for secondary sources - and as such, his comments should be weighted acordingly per . And per BEFORE, all this talk of converting this to a general article about buses in Colchester tells me that it would be rather pointless deleting the list of routes until then, as it would form a large, verifiable, section of that article. And as an article section, it would have no need to demonstrate notability at all
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Agree with nom that article fails |Wikipedia is not a Directory, |Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide, |Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline, |Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If the article was more general in nature, fine, but it contains far too much detail and timetables that is totally un-encyclopedic as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:SAL||WP:IINFO||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: It's a perfectly valid list of routes of a major bus system in a major city.  Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city and that is ''very'' encyclopedic.  I see "WP is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in  or its  and  that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This list ''is'' discriminate and isn't a " repositories of loosely associated topics " or anything of the like.  I also notice the nom and the pack of delete voters are simply stating lists of bus routes are unencyclopedic in general and not making a case to delete this list article of ''this'' specific city's bus routes, yet they haven't touched the List of bus routes in London List of bus routes in Manhattan or the like which one would imagine are much more colossal violations of encyclopedic content to those who don't like bust list articles.  Like with the Peterborough bus routes AfD (it was kept), this looks like some kind of  test case on a small market
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IINFO||WP:DIRECTORY||WP:POINT)