Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reed Exhibitions

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 redirect to RELX. ✗plicit 12:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Exhibitions

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination. User:WeldingF originally created this post back in November but didn't follow procedures to properly open the discussion. Didn't think it was appropriate to do a WP:NACAFD so thought I would do this instead. The original rationale was "Company not notable enough, as it only contains notable assets." Jay eyem (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RELX#Exhibitions: The present article was originally created by a WP:SPA with subsequent editing by other WP:SPAs including Mironova reedexpo and ReedExhibitions. The Operations and market segments section in the article on the RELX (former Reed Elsevier) parent has brief coverage of this topic, and its Controversy section covers some past exhibition activities (though their Spearhead military exhibition unit may have been distinct). An article on a particular operating unit would need strong notability demonstrable in its own right, or possibly to have such a level of associated "controversy" coverage as to make a split out of the parent article appropriate. I don't see notability as inheriting from these or from past NRA / NSSF boycotts of particular events described in the present article, and consider the RELX article as the better focus for development. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a colleague just mentioned this discussion to me, so I'm adding my thoughts here. I'm an employee of RELX, so can't get involved directly due to potential WP:COI but RX is more than just 'a particular operating unit' of RELX - it is one of the world's largest events businesses so it definitely feels like it merits its own page. Can you suggest what might be done to help develop this page in order to remove the notability warning? Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RELX --Devokewater ^(talk) 21:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.