This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I have proposed this article for deletion.
As noted in the in-article proposal text, the original creator of the page has an explicit conflict of interest, as noted on their user page. The article struggles with WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT using business promotional language and its only sources from the company website itself. The business the article is about lacks significance in third-party, reliable sources. The article itself is fruit of a poisoned COI tree.
I assume good faith and am happy to discuss others thoughts. Balancingakt ( talk) 04:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Original creator of the page has an explicit conflict of interest as an employee of the company, as noted on their user page. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
On 13 November 2023 I edited the page to clean out content that violates WP:Verifiability as well as WP:Promotional, WP:Logos, and WP:COI.
Noting here for the record that Earl Andrew has reverted my edit three times in the 24 hours from 14:24, 13 November 2023 to 13:32, 14 November 2023.
Earl's direct edits are in violation of WP:COI, as they have self-identified as an employee of Ekos Research Associates and they have been warned multiple times here and on their talk page. Earl continued to revert, claiming my removal was vandalism, without providing any evidence or explanation. Earl has an increasingly lengthy record of disruptive and uncivil behaviour on this page.
Given the persistent display of bad faith, a level 2 warning for disruptive editing has been noted on Earl Andrew's talk page.
@ Earl Andrew please abide by WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Propose changes on the talk page instead of making them directly. Balancingakt ( talk) 23:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I just did a Google search for Ekos Research Associates, and saw both the logo and headquarters photograph. Removing them from this article will not remove them from Google, so I don't why you brought that up. LinkedIn has both the logo and headquarters photo, and Crunchbase had the logo, along with a bunch of other non-notable websites, so Google doesn't give a rats ass if this article has them or not, when they can easily be found elsewhere. And I also noticed that both LinkedIn and Crunchbase have logos in their infoboxes, along with thousands and thousands of other companies with WP articles. Inclusion of the logo and headquarters photo is non-controversial and should be included, and in regards to the specific issue of the logo and photo, your concerns with COI are overstated, in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 09:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The article has been full-protected until 17 November. Balancingakt has been partially blocked from AN/I as a result of a section that they started there about Earl Andrew. I believe the general view at the noticeboard is that they have been editing on an assumption of bad faith. But that does not mean the entirety of their criticisms of the article were wrong. As they said, this version, which I believe was the last before they began editing it, was referenced only to the company's About page (for the president). Balancingakt has both stripped material out of the article—including the logo, an image of company HQ, and the president's name. I disagree with these removals, and others have expressed disagreement both in the section above and at AN/I with the basis on which they were done. But Balancingakt has also begun to expand the article, using this source: Philippe J. Fournier (May 20, 2019). "How accurate are Canadian polls?". Macleans.. Their use of that source may not be NPOV, if only in the emphasis that paragraph now has in the shortened article. But in my opinion the article should indeed be expanded. Kvng reinstated the president using one of four sources provided by Earl Andrew at the AfD (started by Balancingakt, closed as keep in large part because of the weight of sources that were shown there to exist): Michael Valpy (June 17, 2011). "A pollster's painful reckoning: 'How could I have screwed up so badly?'". The Globe and Mail.. (The source needs to be fully identified in the article.) The other 3 sources listed by Earl Andrew are in a "Refideas" template above, but for anyone looking only at this section, they are: Globe and Mail, Callegaro et al, and HillTimes. Earl Andrew has restated that because of his COI, he prefers not to edit the article directly. I advocate the restoration of all material removed by Balancingakt and the use of these 3 sources and any others that can be found to re-expand it. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
"Ekos Research Associates' logo is not reasonably familiar to the general public". I looked through some old newspapers at Newspapers.com, and I found the earliest use of that same logo in 1985, so considering they have been using that same exact logo for the past 38 years, I would argue it is reasonably familiar to the general public. And the headquarters photo is in the public domain, so it can be freely used if there is consensus to do so. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity.(and that I believe reflects our practice; as more than one person noted in that AN/I discussion, we habitually include logos, usually in the infobox, and as I noted, they constitute a substantial class of fair use uploads). However, the Advertising section of the page, which Balancingakt has been quoting, reads in its entirety:
Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons.Both of these were added to the page at the same time, in 2004. But I don't believe the Advertising section reflects practice or is desirable as policy. Once we establish that a topic is notable, our task is to write an informative page about it. While everything in that page (such as a person's birth or death dates, or a company's president/CEO or logo) should be verifiable, not everything in the page has to be provably notable. IMO someone with nerves of steel should rewrite that section to be about fancrufty piling up of special forms or old forms of logos or something. Dpbsmith, what did you have in mind with the Advertising section? Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I have proposed this article for deletion.
As noted in the in-article proposal text, the original creator of the page has an explicit conflict of interest, as noted on their user page. The article struggles with WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT using business promotional language and its only sources from the company website itself. The business the article is about lacks significance in third-party, reliable sources. The article itself is fruit of a poisoned COI tree.
I assume good faith and am happy to discuss others thoughts. Balancingakt ( talk) 04:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Original creator of the page has an explicit conflict of interest as an employee of the company, as noted on their user page. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
On 13 November 2023 I edited the page to clean out content that violates WP:Verifiability as well as WP:Promotional, WP:Logos, and WP:COI.
Noting here for the record that Earl Andrew has reverted my edit three times in the 24 hours from 14:24, 13 November 2023 to 13:32, 14 November 2023.
Earl's direct edits are in violation of WP:COI, as they have self-identified as an employee of Ekos Research Associates and they have been warned multiple times here and on their talk page. Earl continued to revert, claiming my removal was vandalism, without providing any evidence or explanation. Earl has an increasingly lengthy record of disruptive and uncivil behaviour on this page.
Given the persistent display of bad faith, a level 2 warning for disruptive editing has been noted on Earl Andrew's talk page.
@ Earl Andrew please abide by WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Propose changes on the talk page instead of making them directly. Balancingakt ( talk) 23:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I just did a Google search for Ekos Research Associates, and saw both the logo and headquarters photograph. Removing them from this article will not remove them from Google, so I don't why you brought that up. LinkedIn has both the logo and headquarters photo, and Crunchbase had the logo, along with a bunch of other non-notable websites, so Google doesn't give a rats ass if this article has them or not, when they can easily be found elsewhere. And I also noticed that both LinkedIn and Crunchbase have logos in their infoboxes, along with thousands and thousands of other companies with WP articles. Inclusion of the logo and headquarters photo is non-controversial and should be included, and in regards to the specific issue of the logo and photo, your concerns with COI are overstated, in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 09:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The article has been full-protected until 17 November. Balancingakt has been partially blocked from AN/I as a result of a section that they started there about Earl Andrew. I believe the general view at the noticeboard is that they have been editing on an assumption of bad faith. But that does not mean the entirety of their criticisms of the article were wrong. As they said, this version, which I believe was the last before they began editing it, was referenced only to the company's About page (for the president). Balancingakt has both stripped material out of the article—including the logo, an image of company HQ, and the president's name. I disagree with these removals, and others have expressed disagreement both in the section above and at AN/I with the basis on which they were done. But Balancingakt has also begun to expand the article, using this source: Philippe J. Fournier (May 20, 2019). "How accurate are Canadian polls?". Macleans.. Their use of that source may not be NPOV, if only in the emphasis that paragraph now has in the shortened article. But in my opinion the article should indeed be expanded. Kvng reinstated the president using one of four sources provided by Earl Andrew at the AfD (started by Balancingakt, closed as keep in large part because of the weight of sources that were shown there to exist): Michael Valpy (June 17, 2011). "A pollster's painful reckoning: 'How could I have screwed up so badly?'". The Globe and Mail.. (The source needs to be fully identified in the article.) The other 3 sources listed by Earl Andrew are in a "Refideas" template above, but for anyone looking only at this section, they are: Globe and Mail, Callegaro et al, and HillTimes. Earl Andrew has restated that because of his COI, he prefers not to edit the article directly. I advocate the restoration of all material removed by Balancingakt and the use of these 3 sources and any others that can be found to re-expand it. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
"Ekos Research Associates' logo is not reasonably familiar to the general public". I looked through some old newspapers at Newspapers.com, and I found the earliest use of that same logo in 1985, so considering they have been using that same exact logo for the past 38 years, I would argue it is reasonably familiar to the general public. And the headquarters photo is in the public domain, so it can be freely used if there is consensus to do so. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity.(and that I believe reflects our practice; as more than one person noted in that AN/I discussion, we habitually include logos, usually in the infobox, and as I noted, they constitute a substantial class of fair use uploads). However, the Advertising section of the page, which Balancingakt has been quoting, reads in its entirety:
Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons.Both of these were added to the page at the same time, in 2004. But I don't believe the Advertising section reflects practice or is desirable as policy. Once we establish that a topic is notable, our task is to write an informative page about it. While everything in that page (such as a person's birth or death dates, or a company's president/CEO or logo) should be verifiable, not everything in the page has to be provably notable. IMO someone with nerves of steel should rewrite that section to be about fancrufty piling up of special forms or old forms of logos or something. Dpbsmith, what did you have in mind with the Advertising section? Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)