Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICM 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 keep. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICM Research

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

Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Lack of independent coverage. This is one of the few such companies where their name has any sort of "Clapham omnibus" recognition, so we ought to be able to justify an article. However WP:N still wants sources, and sources in the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As Andy Dingley says, ICM is an immediately recognised name in the UK. Indeed, when I went into the newspaper shop this morning, it was immediately staring me in the face, in large font on the front of Scotland on Sunday [1]. I am cautious of falling back on an "it's clearly notable" argument though. I have added a couple of 3rd party references to the article, but am conscious that they place this firm in its industry context rather than being specific depth coverage of the firm in itself. However that and other sources, such as the discussion on weighting methodologies by this and the other 2 main firms in "British Elections & Parties Review" (via Questia, subscription reqd.) feels like enough to indicate that the firm carry sufficient notability for encyclopaedic inclusion. AllyD (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to hundreds of brief references, there are in-depth sources for this, particularly discussing ICM's polling methodologies, covering 15 or 20 years (which makes it harder to describe their present activities). Sources include: The UK General Election of 2010: Explaining the Outcome edited by Justin Fisher, Christopher Wlezien[2]; Opinion Polls: History, Theory and Practice by Nick Moon[3]; The Economist discusses their methodology[4]; academic paper on polling[5]; there's also 17 hits in Opinion polls and volatile electorates by Matt Henn on Google books which is snippet view only. As everyone agrees, it's a well-known company whose polls are commonly reported, but there is coverage which goes well beyond the typical business press "X taken over by Y"/"X reported sales of $Z". --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ICM is quite a well used poll. And with many books, it is relevant to look at the publisher to provide some credibility in academic sources. I Have in the past seen ICM surveys used in student essays from the social sciences. Though I would suggest more research is given for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.31.162 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (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.