Deletion of List of bus routes in Lahore

Comment: nominator fails on two points: lists of bus routes are not  nor are they . For NOTTRAVEL, a list of bus routes is not something you would normally find in a travel guide of, say, Lahore; the guide may tell you to take a certain bus to a certain attraction, which would violate , but I've never seen complete public transit information in an travel guide. Furthermore, it's not crufty since transportation authorities are notable, and the routes they provide are discriminate and non-trivial. There have been policy discussions about bus routes and while I think probably 99% of bus routes don't deserve their own article, I have no problem with a list of bus routes for notable transportation authorities, since it's likely the list will be notably/reliably sourced, which I think is the case here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: Now that everyone has been pinged. We are not a directory of bus routes, or anything else. Some editors have asserted that some lists are inherently notable and others are not, without making any policy based case. It cannot be snow keep when a number of editors have made policy based case for deletion. , , ,  and  all have a relevance here and as most routes are commercial opperations there is a risk of using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:NOTGUIDE||WP:NOTDIR||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: See , which states: ''Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable; recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common.''  If these list articles weren't notable, why is the common outcome that articles on individual bus routes ought to be merged into them?Special:Contributions/192.160.216.52|192.160.216.52
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:BUSOUTCOMES)

Comment: There are notable bus routes in quite a few of these lists, confirmed by either third party references that are already included in the lists or that can be found. Examples from the List of bus routes in Edmonton alone show various third party references including https://globalnews.ca/news/2195288/5-bus-routes-will-now-run-until-3-a-m-edmonton-transit/ 1, https://globalnews.ca/news/3236078/3rd-ets-bus-route-added-between-edmonton-and-spruce-grove/ 2, https://globalnews.ca/news/3883059/committee-votes-on-temporary-changes-to-keep-bus-route-747-to-edmonton-airport-going/ 3, https://globalnews.ca/news/4050574/edmonton-airport-bus-route-747-funding-expanding/ 4.. and that just shows examples from one news source and that are currently in the article. A search through other http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-airport-bus-fare-drops-back-to-5-as-part-of-regional-deal newspapers and http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com/2016/08/26/city-signs-new-ets-agreement other sources show other articles, confirming notability of said routes. A look at  shows no application to this context. To quote from the policy, "Not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées."... neither this nor any other excerpt from that policy seemingly has any application here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE)

Comment: Per nom. There is no encyclopedic value and is simply acting as a |travel guide. If, however, there is content, supported by secondary sources, related to the change in routes, etc. then it would be work keeping that content (and only that content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (:WP:NOTGUIDE)