Ekos Research Associates: As per WP:N it has not received “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.”  The only third-party, reliable sources that make mention of Ekos are those that republish or refer to Ekos’ opinion polls, which are work produced by the article subject and not “independent of the subject”.  No source makes significant reference to the company itself as a topic in any detail.  (2)The article does not have any reliable sources.  The single only source the article has been built on is the website of Ekos, the subject company of the article itself.  As per WP:RS this is self-published and not reliable.  (3)The article serves as a means of promotion.  While relatively neutral in tone, the informational value of the article is to promote the service lines, locations and websites of the business.  There is little to no information of encyclopedic relevance.  As per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapboax or means of promotion.  (4)The article's creation and editing is tainted by conflict of interest.  The original creator of the article has acknowledged that they created the article in 2005 while an employee of the company (concerning in light of WP:COI ).  They continued to add and control edits in the years since as they remained and still remain an employee.  There is evidence that at least one other regular contributor was also in a close working or personal relationship to the company and/or its ownership.  Balancingakt ( talk ) 01:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notability is shown by all the citations of the company's research.  See this Google Scholar search .  See "Developing skills in the Canadian workplace: the results of the Ekos Workplace Training Survey | VOCEDplus, the international tertiary education and research database" .  , a scholarly article that analyzes a survey done by Ekos.  Google Scholar says the article was cited by 115 others.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Quantity does not determine significance.  It is the quality of the content that governs.  The notability test in WP:GNG has a few factors that must all be met.  As I read it, references and sharing of the opinion poll research (i.e. a work product of Ekos) does not satisfy the "independence" factor and so does not count for notability.  If I am wrong there, the issue remains that no source provides "significant coverage", addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.  Since no reliable source actually talks about Ekos the company directly and in detail, there is no notability.  I acknowledge their research is frequently cited but there is still no material for an article on Ekos and no notability.  Balancingakt ( talk ) 06:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments: COI and promotional tones are not issues for AfD; deletion ≠ clean-up.  In any event, these two issues have been fixed.  This leaves 2 of the nominator's issues outstanding: reliable sources and notability.  This article has dozens of incoming links from other articles for what it's worth.  Other Canadian pollsters have articles: List of polling organizations#Canada -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  It would help with a Keep argument if the article had sources besides the company's website.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The majority of nom's concerns have been addressed.  Enough coverage exists to meet WP:GNG .  Deleting this does not help readers or improve the encyclopedia.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As my COI is clearly stated on the talk page, I will not be voting in this discussion, but if anyone is interested in adding some independent reliable sources to the article (as this is a serious issue with the article), here are some places to start.  How robo-calls work: the cheap and easy way to poll (Globe and Mail) , A critical review of studies investigating the quality of data obtained with online panels based on probability and nonprobability samples (Callegaro et al) , Pollster Graves is in ‘the house’ (HillTimes) , A pollster's painful reckoning: 'How could I have screwed up so badly?' .  -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, there are still no independent, secondary sources in the article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've provided independent sources on the talk page, here.  I would add them to the article if it weren't for my COI. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added one of those to the article and copied the others into {{ refideas }} on Talk:Ekos Research Associates .  Respectfully, this should not be a precondition for closure of the deletion discussion - WP:NOTCLEANUP .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:25, 21 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep