Talk:Institute of Aviation, Warsaw

Article name

This should be moved to something like Instytut Lotnictwa (Warsaw Institute of Aviation)Petebutt (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is now a redirect of that name. That seems enough. --Stfg (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

This article should certainly never have been speedily deleted. It does not come close to meeting the criteria. Yes, it certainly needs a good copyedit, but it is a perfectly acceptable subject for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the copyvio. Bingo, we have a perfectly acceptable stub. Please try to be creative instead of destructive! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. The most important thing perhaps is to protect us from copyvios here -- especially in light of the legislation under consideration, which will be the reason wikipedia will be down tomorrow. The destructive aspect of that legislation -- coupled with copyvios such as this one -- can of course threaten the entire project, not just this stub.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Might as well have left it deleted, for the content you've left behind. It's now barely more than a link farm. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, you should have left it deleted. What you've done is to restore the whole copyvio for anyone to access from the page history. Not good. --Stfg (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you're not familiar with WP:Stub and unaware that Wikipedia considers stubs to be perfectly acceptable articles. As to restoring a copyvio, surely you're not suggesting that any copyvio inserted into an article should result in the complete deletion of that article in case the copyvio is accessed through the edit history? Because that really would be a ludicrous suggestion! --

(←) Yes, thank you, I am familiar with WP:Stub, including its "Basic information" section, which says things like "... though providing some useful information ..." and "...if a small article has little properly sourced information ... it may be deleted ...". As to copyvio retained in page history, it is, of course, possible to remove items from page history, although I'm aware that WP doesn't feel itself obliged to do so in the case of copyvio. In this case, the article has so little left in it that it seems strange to keep all that copyvio in the history merely to retain such meagre content. I am not a lawyer, but {{db-copyvio}} was created for a purpose, I suppose, and its use on this article seems relevant enough to deserve respectful treatment, at least. Comments like "Please try to be creative instead of destructive!" is a personal attack, and "Obviously you're not familiar with ... and unaware that ..." is also ad hominem, and patronising at best. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, but a comment about unjustified calls to delete a whole article because you didn't like part of what was in it. I'm tired of editors (an increasing number) who seem to be more intent on deleting material than adding it. Your comment above did make it appear that you were unaware (as many editors now appear to be) of our policy towards stubs (I have seen many, many calls on AfDs for deletion of articles on perfectly acceptable topics just because they're stubs). My apologies if that was not true. As to copyvios, I think you're taking it too far. The copyvio is no longer in the article and one would have to be pretty dedicated to search in the edit history for it - far easier just to search on Google and find the source article or follow the link in our article to it surely! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)