Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Morgan 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 of the debate was strong KEEP. Ben Aveling 04:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Morgan Research

• nn corporate vanity page. Advertising! AnAn 13:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• This page is factual and contains no contact information or language that would be biased toward or in favour of this company. This is a large company that has played a significant role in reporting public opinion for many years in Australia. Further research is required for this article for it to be more substantial, deletion is not necessary. Roy Morgan Research was in no way involved in the creation of this article. See: ACNielsen User:PeterPartyOn 20:56, 22 January 2006 (AEST)

• Survey says...Delete Ruby 15:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You what? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't get it. What's the rationale for Delete? it's a big company that has a daily presence in Australians' lives (e.g. electoral polling). the article isn't biased. why delete? --Sumple 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep exactly as Sumple. --Bduke 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep meets requirements for WP:CORP, most Australian adults would know that Morgan is a polling orgainsation, is ISO cretified, operates in several countries etc.--nixie 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nixie, sumple... vanity? advertising?? non notable??? pfctdayelise 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- very notable organisation. - Longhair 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - regular (fortnightly) presence in all notable AUS newspapers on the poltical opinion polls. Often notable for disagreeing with NEwspoll resultsBlnguyen 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - very notable company. The article I just looked at is not advertising. --Canley 02:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable Australian company. Cnwb 05:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - this company is not only notable but also very significant to the political affairs of the country. As nixie says, most adults (and almost certainly all political science students) would know of the company and what it does. 'Roy Morgan' polls are regularly used as a reference source and for this reason it is important to have an article about the company that conducts the polls. -- Adz|talk 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Regular mentions in the news, opinion polling is a notable part of politics. While disagreeing with the nomination for deletion, I think the original comment was signed, but the nomination seemed to be divided up by another comment, see [1]. Andjam 08:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Do your research, for gods sake. The most cursory Google search could have told you that this is very notable. Ambi 09:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the profile of the original nominator, and you'll understand why. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumple (talk • contribs)

The nominator is an Australian, so the person would have known what Roy Morgan was. Using a single exclamation mark, while not a sign of insanity (that'd be two exclamation marks), isn't often done in a good faith VFD. Andjam 09:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Deliberate waste of everyone's time. evil. --Sumple 22:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand and I agree with Ambi, do some research before blantley claiming that something is not notable. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--cj | talk 08:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Blatantly unnecessary keep, just for the sake of it. Let's nominate BHP next, or Arnott's ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Super unnecesary keep, with extra cheese - this is one of the biggest polling agencies in Australia, regular appearances in the press, long history. --bainer (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and expand per Σ above. WP:IAR I'm closing this one. Ben Aveling 13:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - non-notable/un-encyclopedic > obvious promotional -max rspct leave a message 14:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) MMM But is it notable enough yea? -max rspct leave a message

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.