Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pollara

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pollara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. There are many many passing references to surveys conducted by Pollara, and a couple of rather short pieces about some of its personnel, but I have not been able to find a substantial independent piece about the company itself. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I would've frankly considered A7 and PROD, nothing at all for actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer – see WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Butler, Peter Marshall (2007). Polling and Public Opinion: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 43. ISBN 0802038190. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

     The book notes:

  2. Deverell, John (1988-11-23). "New firm scores coup with perfect poll result". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

     The article notes:

     Insight Canada Research was later renamed to Pollara. See this source for verification of the name change:
     • Brehl, Robert (1997-02-07). "We're glum on guarding culture". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

       The article notes:

  3. Stein, David Lewis (1987-04-23). "How Flynn would fare in election across Metro". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

     The article notes:

  4. Delacourt, Susan (2012-01-06). "Many Canadians believe we're already in recession: survey". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

     The article notes:

  5. Nolan, Dan (2001-02-12). "Day blew the election: pollster; It's a Liberal love-in; Abortion stance alienated voters". The Hamilton Spectator. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

     The article notes:

  6. Hatton, David (2008-01-23). "'Weakening' will feel like a recession: experts". Business Edge. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

     The article notes:

  7. Newman, Peter C. (2011). When the Gods Changed: The Death of Liberal Canada. Toronto: Random House of Canada. p. 274. ISBN 0307358283. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

     The book notes:

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pollara to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard's examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. They do not just show the company passing WP:ORG, but also highlight a clear significance of the company in its field, include some criticism and provide a reliable overview for its history. There is enough material for a decent article. Cavarrone 17:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As noted above, with the reliable sources provided by Cunard, the subject qualifies for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2016 (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.