Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curia Market Research


 * 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 David Farrar (New Zealand). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Curia Market Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, in my opinion. I found a very few reliable sources mentioning company's name but none of them cover it substantially. Article talks about the researches/polls/surveys undertaken by the company on very notable subjects of New Zealand but it fails to answer the very important question that why there should be a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to this company? undefined — Bill william compton Talk   15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC) - gadfium 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason I think it is important: Curia Market Research is an relatively unknown market research company (intentionally so) that does extremely biased research on commission for political groups. Curia has over 200 studies all specifically related to important new zealand political groups. The group itself is not particularly relevant however their research is extremely important in the New Zealand Wikipedia entries for homosexuality, anti-smacking bill, legalized prostitution etc. I originally mentioned curia in an edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand&pe=1&#Public_opinio but have also mentioned it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand#Brothels_and_escort_agencies. I realized although it had significant relevance to the New Zealand topics but the clarification of Curia belonged on a separate wiki page. The intent was allow linking from their research being used as sources in the other wikipedias to the curia page to avoid duplicate information and off topic discussion. Notably the guy who runs curia David Farrar (New Zealand) has been judged significant enough to warrant his own wiki. I have yet to full screen for curia research but it is a very significant source in New Zealand Political debates

CRaZyKcNz (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand&pe=1&#Public_opinion

Currently the same-sex marriage section is being disputed 'because it goes into too much detail'. The Curia Market Research page was created to resolve that fair comment

CRaZyKcNz (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to David Farrar (New Zealand). Farrar is notable, but his company rather less so, and the article as it stands seems to be a coatrack on which to hang criticism of Curia's clients. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, but are the coats notable? Looks to me as if this is a somewhat controversial outfit. They remind me a bit of the story about the researcher who put in a sample of various ages and occupations and sexes who were all in favour of betting on horses. They were queuing up for a train. For Newmarket, Suffolk on race day... Easy when you know how. Peridon (talk)
 * Delete per nom. Also, WP is becoming too much of a business directory rather than an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to David Farrar (New Zealand). As above. Mattlore (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to David Farrar (New Zealand). As above. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 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.