Deletion of London Buses route 157

Comment: In reply to Alansohn (as stated in another AfD),  does apply here. Source mentions must be nontrivial and ''secondary'', and that's not the case here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Please see 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: In response to your edit summary question:  and OT are the policies in question. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information sometimes applies even if the information ''is'' verifiable.  makes one type of distinction-is the information mentioned in nontrivial secondary sources? In all of these articles, I see use of only primary sources, so the answer seems to be "no
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: I haven't seen too many bus route articles, but this would be an excellent model. It covers a detailed history of the route and service. This is not a bus schedule, a directory OR a collection of indiscriminate information. Unfortunately  is far too often abused to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia". It would help if relevant references to a Wikipedia criteria or guideline would be included, as , does NOT fly in this case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Again, the nomination makes explicit reference to , and you're pulling the same fast one on us all, arguing that it means anything you have decided it means. You cannot possibly read this article and tell me that it is an "indiscriminate collection of information".  is sometimes a genuine issue, but in this case it is a poor excuse for deletion from those who seem to be utterly unable to come up with an actual explanation and rely on  as a poor crutch
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)