Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Airlines destinations


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Pegasus Airlines. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pegasus Airlines destinations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminite collection of information. This list of cities has very little in common except that the airline flies there. It isn't needed and adds nothing to the encyclopedia. No sources are given for verifiability. No notability of the subject "Pegasus Airlines destinations" is implied from the list as lit ooks as one would expect a european airline destination map to look. Themfromspace (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sources can be found, in which case merge to Pegasus Airlines, possibly trimming the article down to a list of countries serviced (not individual cities and airports), which might be worthwhile to have just to show the scope of the airline's service. Sheep NotGoats   (Talk) 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the previous discussions on destination lists. here and here. I've also asked the appropriate WikiProject to comment here.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I've added a reference to the Pegasus Airlines flight information. Deleting this article would require attaining a new consensus to delete all airline destination lists. In terms of merging, the list is certainly long enough to require its own article. Mvjs  Talking  06:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not for being WP:INDISCRIMINATE 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 WP:NOT, 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 WP:POLICY 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 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 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. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * merge with airline. WE have deleted articles on airline destination lists before, I think.  A list of destinations would only be useful if one could be sure that it was up to date, but routes are opened and terminated at frequent intervals, meaning that the article will become unmaintainable.  On the other hand, the airline has a strong commercial interest in keeping its own website up to date.  It is therefore much more satisfactory for the airline article to provide a general description of the destinations and an external reference to a commercial website.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to airline article. Current airline article and destination article is not big enough for separate articles, and would be better off merged into the main article.  The consensus at the appropriate wikiproject/s is to create the separate destination article if the main article is too big, which is clearly not the case here. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.