Deletion of List of London school bus routes (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom. There's a clear contradiction of policy in Roodog2's keep rationale "I disagree that this list isn't notable, and you're not going to get any significant secondary/tertiary coverage concerning any bus route, despite bus routes in large, world-class cities being notable." Our notability  policy defines a subject as notable only if it has been noted in significant secondary sources so the lack of them ''is'' a lack of notability. The list also fails the policy of  which advises we shouldn't have lists of all the shops, hotels,  services in a geographical area but should only list a few notable examples in the most appropriate prose article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: per , which proscribes "excessive listings of statistics". If kept, this sprawling article needs extensive work; the infoboxes should go (or be drastically pruned) to help reduce the large amount of hitespace|whitespace
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:W)

Comment: I'm in favour of keeping all the non-duplicate bus route lists, as a useful way of arranging information that would usually be |suitable for inclusion in other articles; I dispute the suggestions that "" is a valid reason, as that is more intended to prevent information or advice that varies from person to person, is excessively trivial or specifically targeted at tourists, or lacks a clearly defined scope; it was probably not intended to be used to single out travel-related articles for special deletionist treatment. I'd say keep, but I think there may be Wikipedia:Deletion process#Consensus|consensus on a wider scale (at AFD and other discussions) to delete these lists, and I can't see why this would be an exception
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NNC||WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: An article on the London school bus ''system'' would be suitable for Wikipedia; a list of its ''routes'' really isn't. , , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:N)

Comment: per  - this is a huge list of obscure bus routes, with nothing which attests to the notability of the topic. As such, this is not suitable content for an encyclopedia. There are various websites which publish this sort of information, and there's no need for Wikipedia to also publish it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Deleting will just end up redlinking pages, of which there are many which use this page. Would it be feasible if it was to divert or be edited where less info is needed and to comply with policies? Also agree with statement that it has no connection to , however partly agree to . Also been looking at previous AfD review, I see nothing wrong with the article that warrants deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: As with last June with the same nom, this is a valid list article per .   clearly states is meant for indiscriminate "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics".  This is a ''very'' discriminate list and not at all a "repository of a loosely associated topics."  I fail to see how a school bus route list is considered a "travel guide."   This is much preferable than having individual bus route articles for every bus route in London, although some historic and important ones might be notable in their own right
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: per . Also, "these routes are not even public transport as the public cannot generally use them" - the public can use these routes. This is exactly the same as the first nomination, which resulted in a '''keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)