Deletion of Messe München

Comment: 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  coverage (from easy Google searches: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-messe-stellenabbau-mitarbeiter-1.5140639, https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wirtschaft/zu-viele-absagen-messe-muenchen-streicht-expo-real-komplett,SDJ6sE1, https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/wirtschaft/Messe-Muenchen-verliert-170-Millionen-Euro-durch-Corona-id57944341.html, and of course lots of coverage of individual trade fairs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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  as a justification.  Policy works most of the time, but there are times when  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:COMMONSENSE)