Deletion of Bus routes in Newcastle, New South Wales

Comment: Does not fall under any of the points mentioned in  and has nothing to do with . Lists of bus routes for various cities are common on Wikipedia and are well accepted (see  and ). This article is as notable as any other listed within Template:Regional_NSW_public_transport and Template:AusPTBus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:LISTN||WP:LISTPURP)

Comment: I am kind of on the fence, yes it could kind of fall under the |NOTTRAVEL but does not really necessarily fall under |NOTDIRECTORY. The only reason I am saying that is because unlike some I have seen on here, it provides a bit more than just a list of bus routes in Newcastle, New South Wales it actually talks about them, and such, now I could see if the wording and article was a bit more improved and polished and have a bit more content it really saying keep, but I could also see a merge into the main article about Newcastle, as a section. With reducing the amount of bus lines mentioned and keeping to the more notable ones
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: nbsp; Nothing to consider here, as the nomination is a  unsupported by preparation on the talk page to show that this was a problem that needed community-wide attention.&nbsp; Suggest more attention to WP:BEFORE going forward.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE)

Comment: as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish |notability. It fails OTTRAVEL, OTDIR, OR at the least
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Just travel guide / directory-type information, which we do not carry per . The "keep" opinions are weakly argued, as they do not rebut this argument, and such statements as "well-established precedent" are also weak as well as dubious, given the several previous deletions of similar articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: as per Charles and nom - Fails , ,  and  - Back in 2014 the UK bus routes were ''all'' deleted due to a lack of notability and there's nothing different with these, Also if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website - not an encyclopedia!, and last but not least a lot of these all become outdated anyway (One article a few years back was 5 years out of date!), In short this whole article fails GNG as well as the bus-related guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:BUSCRUFT||WP:GNG)

Comment: For the solid reasons given by other editors above. I agree that the article's fare tables can go, but AfD is a wholly inappropriate place to discuss problems within an article. That's what the Talk page is for, or being 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: as per , if people want to know this they'll go to the bus company's website (which would be more up to date anyway), not wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: to Newcastle Transport, the new route operator. Specifically don't include the four sections with bus numbers; instead point readers to the timetables in the external links section. Why duplicate effort? This is excessive info for an encyclopedia, especially since there's no sourcing to indicate that these are anything more than run of the mill bus routes. Fails  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTDIR)