Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colmar Brunton


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Colmar Brunton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Attempted to find sources for this one but just ended up with a few hundred passing mentions about surveys that have conducted. The company fails WP:GNG as there is not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and there is also no WP:CORPDEPTH. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that finding sourcing would be difficult given the number of poll results that turn up, but this is a major market and social research and polling company. The extent to which its polls are considered newsworthy (especially in NZ from what I've seen) goes a long way to establishing the firm's notability IMO. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for the comment. I do see that they are a rather large firm in the polling industry and believe that we can combine the multitude of passing mentions to potentially support notability. However, how do we support the content beyond them being who they are? The article is rather large for a company without any references to be found. I think beyond stating who they are with a simple sentence or two there is nothing to support the rest of the content. Thoughts? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From my personal knowledge of this firm (I've never worked for them and have no conflict of interest) all the material in the article appears correct, other than the claim that this is "Australia's largest independent market research agency" which is questionable. It's certainly among the largest. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are probably one of the largest independent market research agencies and notable in the real world, but for Wikipedia, our personal knowledge cannot be used as a WP:RS. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Article needs work, but from a few minutes on Google News I can see sources that go well beyond "Colmar Brunton poll says X". They include a scandal over tobacco polling, analysis of methods that suggest a right-wing bias, and reports on corporate deals and job cuts: New Zealand Herald, Stuff/Business Day, Stuff/Dominion Post, MRWeb, Voxy, Research (magazine of UK Market Research Society) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable for function, but the type is not one to push the news outside of their polls, as seen above they do get some coverage, but anything necessary about key organization matters needs to come from records and business work that is rather specialized at this point. Pew Research Center is similarly in this boat on Wikipedia, despite being equally well established. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2013 (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.