Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messe München


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Messe München

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP, the history section and only reference are nothing to do with this exhibition centre operator. WP:BEFORE reveals only trivial coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's worth looking at Special:Diff/731924161 where an obviously paid PR editor, from the account name and edit summary, removed all source citations from the article. Have you looked at those sources too? Uncle G (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, three dead links (two to the company's own website), and two presumed reliable sources containing trivial coverage. This one reporting record profits, and this one reporting on a new chairman. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, major trade fair operator, organizing Bauma (trade fair), Expo Real, Transport Logistic, Internationale Fachmesse für Sportartikel und Sportmode and others. (At the very least, consider merging with Neue Messe München, their main ground). Nontrivial WP:RS coverage (from easy Google searches:, , , and of course lots of coverage of individual trade fairs. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 20:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources related to this company but none of them offer significant coverage per WP:NCORP. They are all standard notices (trivial), covering losing money, cancelling events, new appointments etc. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not hard to find more and better examples. corruption, overview of company history. Scheduled to host the International Motor Show Germany (world largest motor show), RS discussion. Basically, for a company of this size (especially one intimately connected with large grounds in a major city), there are always sufficient sources. The Süddeutsche Zeitung even has a subtopic for the company on their we page: . I don't think "notability" is a concern worth discussing for this company. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except none of those meet the criteria either. We need in-depth information about the company, not mentions in passing. We need "Independent Content", not rehashed company information. This Spiegel article does not provide any in-depth information on the company not provide any "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. This Sueddeutsche Zeitung article discusses the buildings and the site with only a mere passing mention of the company and fails to provide in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This Frankfurter Allgemeine article also fails to provide any in-depth information on the company and discusses the suitability of Munich to host conferences. As can be seen, the criteria for establishing notability has not been met.  HighKing++ 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , in depth discussion of importance of company for the German economy. This is a company with 300 million euro turnover in a normal year, but much reduced recently. The main difficulty in finding sources is that the company has a stupid name and there are thousands and thousands of "in passing" references. The Sueddeutsche subtopic I linked to above is the "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization" that WP:NCORP asked for, and there are also at least two dissertations about Munich trade fairs, but I don't know how much they focus on the company versus on its interaction with others. (And now I'll go back to working on some far more obscure topics that for some reason don't get hit with deletion requests). —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 21:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, the report looked impressive until I saw the report was commissioned by the topic company - "Im Auftrag der Messe München GmbH führte das ifo Institut nach 2001, 2007 und 2013 zum vierten Mal eine Studie zu den wirtschaftlichen Wirkungen durch". In my opinion, this fails ORGIND as it cannot truly be regarded as "Independent". As I've already stated, references need to meet both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and the other sections of NCORP too - there's no point in saying that a reference meets one part (e.g. "ongoing media coverage") of the guidelines if it fails another part.  HighKing++ 12:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Agree with Kusma. Expertwikiguy (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 03:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The last two "keep" !votes are very weak. The German Wiki is independent from the English one and has its own inclusion criteria. It should not be too difficult to look at the sources present in the German article and see whether they satisfy GNG and can be incorporated here (rather than rely on "sources may exist").
 * Merge to Neue Messe München as WP:ATD. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. The exhibition centre has its own article and most of the references are in relation to either the facilities or to conferences hosted there. Topic company fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Instead of trying to delete this article, how about we see what the German-language counterpart of it is like, then try to expand the English article with text translated from its German counterpart? It's always tough to find a user who will handle such translation jobs, considering the number of active translators can be limited at times. If the German Wikipedia article has separate articles for the company and the facility, why can't the English version? Jim856796 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)  SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, my analysis of the sources presented so far, in the article and in this discussion:
 * Comment, I've looked at the sources on the German article and the vast majority are the company's own websites. Of the few independent, secondary sources the coverage is limited to trivial announcements (opening international offices in Die Welt for example). Due to the company's size and history, and the amount of trivial coverage, I feel that it should be notable - it just seems to be too ordinary. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I came to close, but found myself digging around for sources and was a bit shocked at how few there were. Still, Kusma makes good points and while we definitely want strong sources, our policies are not designed to be blinders, they are designed to guide us.  This is a large company with a lot of reach, they just don't get a lot of coverage.  Their clients are who get the coverage.  I would seem a travesty to delete the article of such an old, established and respected company, even if we have to use WP:IAR as a justification.  Policy works most of the time, but there are times when WP:COMMONSENSE trumps our traditional "2RS + sigcov" rules.  This is something I've only suggested a couple of times in the 15 years of my wikicareer, but it was under the same circumstances, where it would be an obvious mistake to be slavish to the letter of policy while blind to the intent.  In this case, the intent of policy was to reserve inclusion for significant organizations and the formula for determining this is inadequate, so we have to use common sense, and intent, to keep. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:17, 2 May 2021 (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.