Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Airlines destinations
not for being  though, as they are defined lists, there is nothing indiscriminate about them. I have been going thru them, and marked dozens of them as unreferenced in October '''2007'''. Now, 12 months later, many of them still lay unreferenced, and others have simply had the ''unref'' tags removed, but had many edits since then. These lists are getting out of hand. We have many of these lists going directly against #TRAVEL, in that they are including frequencies, flight numbers, aircraft used on routes, and a whole lot of other unencylopaedic information. Worse yet, they are including ''terminated'' destinations, many of which are referenced to ''airchive.com'', which is a website made up of scans of airline timetables and route maps - it is  that we are not to use references or link to '''copyright violations''' - which that website does by hosting copyright images and products (yes, airline timetables are covered by copyright). Also, back in 2007 when going thru articles, the unreferenced tags were removed on many articles and replaced with ''Destinations can be found at URL'', as can be seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegiant_Air_destinations&diff=165081770&oldid=164998581 here as an example; if destinations can be found at the website, then why are these articles here? Many of the actual airline articles have '''zero''' information on the route network, but just a link to the destination list, with no prose. We are not a #TRAVEL|travel guide, nor an airline website. If having the destinations is important, then the best solution is :Image:Airberlindestinations.png -- just without the copyright violation of having the |logo on the map. And yes, it's probably about time all of the articles are again reviewed
— User:Russavia, 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOT||WP:POLICY||WP:NOT||WP:LOGO (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)