Deletion of Clickair destinations

Comment: This is the definition of material that falls under both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not sections cited in the nomination. Notability has not "been established". |Notability means that a topic is the subject of significant treatment in reliable, independent sources; it is not shorthand for having been kept for reasons unrelated to notability or on bases that confuse the way we mean that word here for the vernacular. Are there any independent sources which treat the topic of where an airline flies to substantively? Probably not, but I'd be willing to be convinced. Yet this and every other similiarly situated article I just looked at (ten of them) had no independent sources cited whatever—all |unverified and putatively non-notable. In any event, notability and other policies are separate. Even is this and related articles were shown to be notable, which looks impossible, topics can still violate OT and should be deleted on that independent basis. Wikipedia is OT#DIR|not a directory, it is OT#TRAVEL|not a travel guide, it is |not an indiscriminate collection of information and it is OTSTUPID|not stupid. The prior AfDs got it wrong as they ignored policy in favor of numerous arguments that appear right out of the examples at , such as |I like it, |it's interesting, |it's useful, "people spent a great deal of time writing the material," etc. What is conspicuously absent from this page, thus far, is any policy-based rationale for keeping this material. The first keep cites to a wikiproject guideline which is not in keeping with policy and which begs the question as we already know the Wikiproject fosters the creation of these directories, followed by a classic  argument. The only other rationale given is to refer to the previous debates about the larger class of articles. We are here. The nominator cites policy for deletion which appears to apply. I cite more policy for deletion which appears to apply. Does anyone have a policy-based reason these should be kept, or if not, why the policies cited are inapplicable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:IINFO||WP:NOTSTUPID||WP:AADD||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:INTERESTING||WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:WAX)

Comment: per Fuhghettaboutit; I'm not exactly sure what this article does to warrant inclusion on the encyclopedia; also, I'm not sure a certain Wikiproject's guidelines should be overriding core policies (, ). I respect that the people in Wikiproject Airlines are knowledgeable about the ''subject'', but they don't have the power to carry out arbitrary ruling concerning the fate of articles they encompass. None of those destination lists is cited, and so far the only arguments to keep have been "|there are other destinations articles" and "the Wikiproject allows them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY||WP:TRAVEL||WP:WAX)

Comment: #DIR is not relevant as the list is very precise for inclusion, that being, where this airline flies to, nor is it a 'yellow pages' type list. #TRAVEL is not relevant, as it is not a travel guide, but rather a list which provides precise detail as to the destinations this airline flies to, it is not a travel guide in the sense of what one would see on say virtualtourist.com.  is not relevant, as it is not indiscriminate, either the airline flies to these destinations or not. List of cities, towns, villages, hamlets Clickair flights pass over on their scheduled flights would be against , this list is not. But yes, I do agree that the fact many of these destination lists are unreferenced is a concern (as I noted above), however, as these are not stand-alone lists,  needn't necessarily be the be all and end all of inclusion of these lists, as  clearly comes into play
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IINFO||WP:IINFO||WP:V||WP:SELFPUB)