Deletion of MetroBus (Bristol)

Comment: The way I see it,  doesn't quite apply to this article. The bus company has already filed a massive cache of documents and plans with the Bristol City Council http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=N2FHD4DN00J00, including a map of one of the proposed routes http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/2C4C6F543524851CF33038238C2E365C/pdf/14_01187_FB-AREA_A_07_ZONE_1_ROUTE_OVERVIEW_KEY_PLAN-1118216.pdf. These are definite proposals as opposed to "unverifiable speculation". Additionally, the bus routes have been highly controversial; environmentalists have complained that MetroBus construction would  destroy valuable land. I'd argue that this article http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-28799884 from BBC Gloucestershire is at least a regional source and meets  of the notability requirements for organizations. Given these sources and others mentioned above, I'd say the level of coverage is sufficient for a stand-alone article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:AUD)

Comment: WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Once operational, this scheme will be notable and the fact that central government approval has been given to one route and that the planning applications for all three routes have http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-28959145 first stage approval is sufficient for us to assume implementation. Deletion, only to recreate is inefficient, and most significantly, there is sufficient material in reliable sources to make a worthwhile and informative stub. Finally, even if the scheme does eventually get cancelled, sufficient reliable source coverage has probably been generated anyway to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)