Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockwell Collins

On 29 July 2004, Rockwell Collins was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the original article. It was subsequently replaced with a different topic under the same name (which, since it was still within the 5 day discussion window, was voted a "keep"). Rossami 23:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A bare link to an external web site. BTW, why isn't this sort of thing a candidate for speedy deletion? It doesn't meet the criteria there, as far as I can tell, but I think it probably should be speedy deleted. - Kenwarren 15:46, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Del - If I had come across it, I would have speedydeleted it (I think it falls under "Very short pages with little or no definition or context"), but seeing as it's here now, it can go to the vote. TPK 15:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did speedy-delete it - Wikipedia is not a web directory, thus an article which only conmtains an external link can be deleted right away. andy 16:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep . (As I stated before in a different place), I hate to look at links already gone; and if this one has been about this company then it should have stayed even as a micro-sub-stub, as it's one of the most famous brand names in avionics... (you wouldn't speedy delete a stub about Rolls Royce would you?) --Palapala 07:21, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
 * I would again delete it in the state it was at that time - an article which has the sole contents "http://www.rollsroyce.com" is not worth keeping, especially as the URL is trivial to find. If it however has at least one sentence like "Rolls Royce is a car company" then it is a valid stub - not that I like such stubs, but those cannot be speedy deleted for sure. andy 11:26, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yup, quite understandable - in order of preference the state of the article would be "proper article", then "no page", then "blatant sub-stub advert". Your delete improved the situation, never fear. - TB 12:51, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Palapala, the company is significant. I've put up a short article about Rockwell Collins in the gap left by the speedy-delete.  - TB 09:37, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Palapala 11:16, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
 * Keep; we can work with the article now. (Shouldn't subst:vfd still be on the page?)  --Ardonik 04:43, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure - the original content was speedy deleted, what's there is an entirely new article. If there's still debate to be had about the suitability of the subject for an article, please do add the message. - TB 09:21, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * How long does this entry have to stay here? The VfD page is taking forever to load/save, and we've got old entries like this one still hanging around. Salasks 21:40, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5 days. RickK 22:04, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)