Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Everard


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Eric Everard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just a man with a job, nothing special. Article looks like an advertisement. The Banner talk 21:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I can find no significant independent coverage such as would meet the terms of notability. Promotional.  nonsense  ferret  00:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check the references provided below and on the wiki page, notably in Le Soir and RTBF. Best regards.--EdWalker58 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the references you have provided, and the question seems to come down to whether we consider this a 'well-known and significant award' or not per the terms of WP:PEOPLE. It doesn't seem to me that it is in an encyclopedia sense, nor does it seem to be part of the enduring historical record in the field, other people will take other opinions I'm sure.  nonsense  ferret  15:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the trouble to review the references. I agree, an award in itself does not necessarily qualify someone for inclusion in Wikipedia. More important are the achievements that enabled the person to be nominated for, and then to win the award in the first place. On what basis would you judge an entrepreneur in a services industry to be worthy of note, if not that he has won the top award for a person in business in his country? --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC) And please note that if you still feel that the subject's notability is poorly explained, the best remedy recommended by Wikipedia is to do some rewriting WP:BOLD. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The test of significant coverage is a higher bar than merely having mentions in the press solicited by press releases - in the business world there are a lot of different awards thrown around, sponsored by different publishers and businesses, and these are heavily publicized and promoted. Outside of paid for promotion, truly notable and encyclopedic businessmen and awards are not numerous. nonsense  ferret  16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary there are many hundreds of businessmen with Wikipedia entries. It is rather peculiar that the objection to Eric Everard's page has only been raised SINCE he won the Manager de l'Annee award. For four years, no such objection was raised. Would it help resolve this dispute if I restructured the article along the lines done by one of your fellow Wikipedians on the Dutch page (which I created last week)? His/her help has been constructive and useful. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither the age of the article ( see policy ), nor the existence of an article in other languages (see policy), nor the existence of other articles about businessmen ( see policy ), are reasons to keep this article. From my perspective, I think the article should be deleted because the subject is not notable or encyclopedic, and this cannot be remedied by rewriting the article  nonsense  ferret  17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added another reference, this time to radio coverage on RTL. My arguments for retention are based on the subject's position internationally within the trade shows industry and as a businessman of standing in Belgium. The subject is an innovator, recognized globally as an innovator in his industry (hence his election as President of UFI) and within his country, where he received an award from the Prime Minister. I have responded to all your objections, provided citations when requested, offered ways to resolve this dispute amicably etc etc but each time you and banner move the goalposts. It is a shame. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no moving of goalposts, wikipedia's policies are consistent and stable. My view of whether the subject of this article meets those policies differs from yours, and I have expressed it clearly. Given you have been paid to promote the subject, I would be very surprised if you did agree with me nonsense  ferret  18:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there has been constant moving of goalposts. Look below, you asked for references, I gave them. Then you moved the goalposts. As stated elsewhere, I am more than happy for a neutral editor to edit the article to remove any point of view issues. This has already happened on the Dutch language page, don't see why it can't be done here. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a nonsensical argument, I haven't moved goalposts, because I'm not responsible for setting them, and it is totally irrelevant to the discussion which is does the article meet wikipedia's policies or not. The wikipedia policies are clear and have not changed. It is my opinion that they aren't met here, other people will not doubt have different opinions.  I've looked carefully at the references you have provided to try and prove that the policies are met.  After looking, I'm still personally of the opinion that they are not met.  As pointed out earlier, Dutch wikipedia isn't English wikipedia, and they do not set a precedent for us here.  Ultimately it is the administrators which need to be convinced either way, not me.  nonsense  ferret  20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dutch article does not set a precedent, on the contrary, the English page existed for four years, whereas the Dutch page was only created last week, then immediately edited to meet Wikipedia standards by a more constructive contributor. I welcome such editing by any neutral party. Indeed it is not for you to decide whether the page should remain. You have shown yourself to be closed to any rational argument or any constructive proposals to improve the article. This does not strike me as being in the spirit of Wikipedia. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone paid to write articles in order to promote a company I'm not sure you are best placed to be lecturing people about the spirit of wikipedia :) nonsense  ferret  21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not lecturing anyone - but I would like this discussion to continue on a polite and respectful basis. As I have stated umpteen times I am perfectly happy for a neutral editor to edit the article if there are any POV issues. If you feel the content is promotional, please feel free to correct it. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * as stated above, re-editing may remove a POV issue, but it cannot add notability to a non-notable subject. Attempting to insinuate that I am being impolite because I disagree with you is just a bit silly.  nonsense  ferret  21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have stated yourself, it is only your opinion that the subject is "non notable". It is not an opinion that is shared by those who select Belgium's Manager of the Year, nor presumably by the person who presented the award Elio Di Rupo. I think they are better placed to decide. Kind regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has been placed on wikipedia almost four years ago and has since been regularly completed, without any remark or opposition. The man has become more notable than ever, since beginning this month he was elected "Manager of the Year" by the Belgian financial weekly 'Trends Tendances'. He received his award out of the hands of the Belgian prime minister. He is by all means a innovative entrepreneur. Because a Dutchman thinks that as he does not know this Belgian citizen, he is not noteworthy, he puts this on the deletion list. Only because a recently made article on the Dutch wikipedia does not suit him. As somebody asked the question: "Why deletion-proposal on the Dutch wikipedia for an article since long accepted on the English wikipedia?" he immediately introduced a deletion proposal on the English. This is not a very acceptable way of proceeding and I hope a moderator will assess it for what it is. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, I does not matter that I nominated it here because of a nomination on the Dutch Wikipedia. ENWP makes its own decisions. And my judgement is independent of what is happening there. For your information: related articles like his fellow directors Jean-François Quentin & Julian Kulkarni and his company EasyFairs are also nominated for deletion (and not by me) The Banner talk 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out WP:LONGTIME - suggesting that the age of the article automatically makes it notable is a recognised wikipedia fallacy.  nonsense  ferret  02:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep of course! Elected "Manager of the Year" in Belgium...--Zeisterre (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This article meets notability criteria. Eric Everard has been elected President of a world industry federation and manager of the year in Belgium on the basis of his unique contributions as an exhibitor within the events industry, not just in Belgium but internationally. The article includes many sources and citations.User:EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed more then likely that you, as employee Group Marketing of EasyFairs, think that your boss is notable and want to promote him. The Banner talk 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not an employee - if in doubt on this point please check with the company. I do assist with their promotion. This does not disqualify me from contributing to wikipedia. Rather than resorting to personal abuse and innuendo, could you please explain why a prominent entrepreneur who has recently been elected Belgium's manager of the year should be excluded from having a wikipedia entry? User: EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * perhaps you are unaware about the wikipedia policies about conflict of interest WP:COI And again I would reiterate that winning a non-notable award does not make anyone notable, simple as.  nonsense  ferret  13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not as an employee, but still working on their behalf and/or paid by them. Or is this page, that I looked up a moment ago, already outdated? Indeed, it does not disqualify you from editing on Wikipedia. But Conflict of interest gives a lot of people itchy feelings. Especially Conflict of interest makes people unhappy. BTW, that section states clearly: The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is strictly prohibited. And because you claim to live in Germany, I ask your special attention to Conflict of interest. The Banner talk 14:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC) And please, stop your laughable complaints about my other articles.
 * I have, as is advised on the COI page, sought to abide by Wikipedia best practices. Nobody is denying you the right to regard a Belgian award as non-notable. You are also free to edit the page to correct any perceived faults, lack of objectivity or point of view issues. In fact I would welcome it. Note that there are also Wikipedia policies about harassment, also referred to on the COI page. WP:HA WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY WP:NPLT --EdWalker58 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not as much the award, it is the advertising for the person. What you wrote was a story of the type "Look how brilliant I am!". Thanks to CorporateMs work, the article is much better now, but I still doubt if he is notable enough to warrant a spot. The Banner talk 00:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * CorporateM's work was done at my request. I am delighted to have reached a sensible compromise. The French and Dutch articles are more complete, as is appropriate for a biography of a Belgian national. Kind regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * so Eric Van Zele is in fact manager of the year, and as a footnote Eric Everard is 'Francophone manager of the year' - is this award really notable? Do they have a separate manager of the year award for each language group?  There seems to be a bit of vagueness here about what this award is - people talk about manager of the year as if it was a thing, but I don't see much independent coverage, doesn't sound like we will have an article about the award itself, so winning it isn't notable in my book.  I won ferret of the year at the ferret fanciers annual celebration  nonsense  ferret  13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Belgium is a bilingual state, so they do everything double. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are two awards, one for the francophones and one for the flemish speakers. Eric Everard's precise title is therefore "Manager de l'Annee", which translates into English as "Manager of the Year". This is normal in Belgium. The award is given by Belgium's leading business publication, Trends-Tendances magazine.--EdWalker58 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any significant independent coverage (ie not from a press release) of either the magazine or the award? I note that another contributor to this discussion has nominated Trends-Tendances page for deletion due to lack of notability/sources  nonsense  ferret  14:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was covered in the Belgian national daily, Le Soir, and on national TV (RTBF and Canal Z).--EdWalker58 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs? nonsense  ferret  14:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the RTBF link: http://www.rtbf.be/video/detail_le-manager-de-l-annee?id=1789979 and here is the Canal Z link: http://canalz.levif.be/news/les-sujets/interview-du-manager-de-l-annee-09-01-13/video-4000231330522.htm?amp; --EdWalker58 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Le Soir article was already cited in the article, but here it is again: http://www.lesoir.be/154973/article/economie/2013-01-09/eric-everard-%C3%A9lu-manager-francophone-l%E2%80%99ann%C3%A9e-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdWalker58 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it correct that CanalZ is from the same publisher as the award? nonsense  ferret  14:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now added the two TV interview references to the Wikipedia entry. There are now four references to the award in the Belgian national media. Best regards.--EdWalker58 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The award "Manager de l'Année" is a very important award in Belgium. All those who have received this award in the past have proven to be captains of industry. The article is written in a neutral way and cannot be considered an advertisement or a CV. It conforms to the requirements of WP:BIO. Therefore : keep. JoJan (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.