212:
can't that be an article. It is titled with the company in the title so you would have to look for
Rockwell Collins to find it, it has people who want to know about it and be informed about it, so they could look up its history, and it is an event that is unique within the company. Now as for like a 10 year band tradition, why shouldn't that be on here. Looking back at it wouldn't you like to know who started that tradition and why? That is something that could be useful and this is the perfect place to hold that wealth of knowledge.
176:, That logic makes no sense. Should every company's Christmas Party be included because it has been happening for years, or should the ten year traditions of every high school band be included? As far as it being important to those involved, my girlfriend, my pets, and my house are important, but they also have no mention by notable sources, and should not have their own articles either (until my dog saves the world, that is)
141:
True, this is specific to one location of
Rockwell Collins, but that does not make the holiday any less notable or worthy of inclusion in the wikipedia archive. It has lasted three years and that alone should make it worthy of being included. I don't know why the holiday's perceived notablity by
211:
Why not? I mean seriously, if it is important enough, similar to an office christmas party, that people would be looking for information for it. And it is correctly titled so people know what company it is without having to read through the article and be upset that it isn't for them. Then why
236:(I suggest you read it this time) states that an article must have receive significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, and must not contain the original research your article is based on. This is an encyclopedia, and by definition not a first party resource, EVER.
304:
If this is truly a notable company event, maybe there are corporate publications that mention it. That might be the basis of a merge with the corporate article. While it seems like this is a delete article, maybe the editor can find references for a merge.
194:, where they talk about things like significant coverage, reliable sources, and the distinction of "notability" from "popularity". So my answer to nells0398 "it is notable to the people who do it, shouldn't that be enough" of no stands.
87:
82:
91:
120:
74:
127:
This is not a notable holiday. It is specific to only one location of
Rockwell Collins, and has no notability, and no reliable sources are or will ever be available.
331:
314:
296:
275:
245:
222:
206:
185:
168:
146:
136:
56:
17:
78:
70:
62:
346:
36:
345:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
142:
you has any say in its inclusion. If it is notable to the people who do it, shouldn't that be enough?
284:
260:
233:
218:
191:
213:
143:
310:
327:
292:
241:
181:
132:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
265:
196:
158:
306:
323:
288:
237:
177:
128:
50:
108:
153:
339:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
287:, because it is not mentioned in any third party-sources.
263:. It's not even mentioned on the companies own website.
232:, Unfortunately, you do not make the pedia guidelines.
115:
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
349:). No further edits should be made to this page.
259:, fails to establish any sort of notability per
8:
7:
322:- no significant coverage anywhere.
24:
71:Rockwell Collins Ugly Sweater Day
63:Rockwell Collins Ugly Sweater Day
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
152:Ahhhhhh......................
332:23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
315:20:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
297:22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
276:22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
246:02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
223:02:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
207:00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
186:23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
169:22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
147:22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
137:21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
57:02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
366:
342:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
221:comment was added at
44:The result was
274:
205:
190:The link goes to
167:
357:
344:
272:
271:
264:
226:
203:
202:
195:
165:
164:
157:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
365:
364:
360:
359:
358:
356:
355:
354:
353:
347:deletion review
340:
269:Esradekan Gibb
267:
266:
230:Further comment
216:
200:Esradekan Gibb
198:
197:
162:Esradekan Gibb
160:
159:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
363:
361:
352:
351:
335:
334:
317:
302:consider merge
299:
278:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
227:
209:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
362:
350:
348:
343:
337:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
316:
312:
308:
303:
300:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:WP:Notability
282:
279:
277:
273:
270:
262:
261:WP:notability
258:
255:
254:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:WP:Notability
231:
228:
224:
220:
215:
210:
208:
204:
201:
193:
192:WP:Notability
189:
188:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
171:
170:
166:
163:
155:
151:
150:
149:
148:
145:
139:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
341:
338:
319:
301:
280:
268:
256:
229:
199:
173:
161:
140:
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
217:—Preceding
307:Chergles
283:, fails
214:nels0398
144:nels0398
121:View log
324:Bearian
289:Scapler
238:Scapler
219:undated
178:Scapler
174:Comment
129:Scapler
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
320:Delete
281:Delete
257:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
46:delete
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
328:talk
311:talk
293:talk
242:talk
182:talk
133:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
330:)
313:)
295:)
244:)
184:)
156:.
154:no
135:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
326:(
309:(
291:(
240:(
225:.
180:(
131:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.