Deletion of List of RTC Transit routes

Comment: per .  I have reread that based on the discussion here and this type of list does not appear to be discouraged.  Then we have the issue of what to do with the content.  Some suggest removing it, it appears that this is due to the fact that moving it back to the main article would overload that.  If we want to remove this type of information from every transit article, then that is a subject for and RFC to change policy and guidelines.  There is a distinction between  and , but the former especially, is very subjective.  Clearly if we listed every stop, or the travel times between points that would violate .  But it does not appear that the list in its current form does.  I think many of the points above are about ways to improve the article.  Those should be remembered by those who work on the article in the future.  Which reminds me that AfD is not for cleanup.  That is what the reason to delete by some here appears to be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:TRAVEL||WP:NOTDIR||WP:TRAVEL)

Comment: per''  as per  discourages lists of "indiscriminate" content.  This list is ''very'' discriminate as being specifically routes in a specific transit system and is acceptable per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:LIST)

Comment: per  - Anyone wanting this info should visit the operators website .... We're an encyclopedia not a travel guide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: There's good arguments to be made on both sides here, but Wikipedia is, indeed, |not a directory, and it is not a travel guide. The list of routes does not appear to pass ; sources report on the company, but not its routes. Whether or not the lists of routes are suitable as s of the transit system articles (i.e. "this would normally be in the main article, but it would be too long there") is a good question, but for bus (and, for that matter, air) routes, I would be inclined to argue no, if only because they can (as has been mentioned) be altered at any time. Now, perhaps this is the sort of article that ''should'' be part of Wikipedia, and I can see that argument, but that, IMHO, would require a change to , and until that is done this is a delete candidate per "not a travel guide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:SPINOUT||WP:NOT)

Comment: unfortunately, your suggestion of getting rid of the places of interest would satisfy the  section, but adding paragraphs about the route would violate it again. then there is still the argument of . The argument rages on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:NOTDIR)