Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadtwerke 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Stadtwerke München

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No suggestion of notability, especially as per WP:CORP. Yes, the company exists - but this is not a business directory (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. 7,500 employees and nearly 4bn euros annual revenue. Yes, I'd say that's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH Mediran  talk 05:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the article doesn't assert its significance at all, I think it should be tagged with speedy deletion, A7 to be specific. Mediran  talk 05:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How does an article "assert its significance"? Does it have to say "look, look, this is notable"? Of course it doesn't. "Asserting its significance" simply means that from the text it appears to be significant. Which it does given its employee numbers and revenue. This is a common misinterpretation of the A7 rule. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm really not someone easily frustrated but "no suggestion of notability"? Running the most of the public transportation network for a city like Munich is not suggesting notability? I'd understand if you said that notability is not verified but "no suggestion" is simply wrong. Also, did WP:BEFORE disappear in the last months? Hmm...apparently not. So I guess you did "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" as advised but somehow failed to find any of the 800+ hits on GNews alone? We are talking about a company that supplies electricity to more than 700.000 households and runs a public transportation network for a city of 1.3 million people not some restaurant somewhere with 3 customers per day. I do admit that I forgot to add sources back when I created the article - I created it as a stub and planned to expand it later when real life interfered but that's no reason to delete it. I expanded it a bit now - real life is still taking its toll so I can't do much at the moment - but I think at least now you can all agree that there is no reason to delete this article. Regards  So Why  14:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per basic common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Notability is asserted in the statement in the article, "The company supplies electricity for more than 95% of Munich's 750.000 households..." Northamerica1000(talk) 02:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, and that was not in there at the time of nomination (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But could have been found by a quick GNews search. Regards  So Why  13:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - The Google News archive link at the header of this discussion is rich in sources comprised of significant coverage about this company. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - simple WP:BIGNUMBER appeals aren't particularly convincing but big numbers that assert notability which are then backed by reliable sources demonstrate notability as far as I'm concerned. Separately, there seems to be enough "significant coverage" available to allow the subject to pass WP:CORPDEPTH anyway, regardless of customer base or product supply. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2012 (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.