Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nominating on behalf on an IP. Rationale is This is a non-notable award sourced mostly to EY themselves and an advertorial. A WP:BEFORE search yields plenty of results, just no GNG-qualifying coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom and article's already-existing issue tags.
 * — That Coptic Guy (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:SUSTAINED. In searching my university library there were over 7,000 hits spanning more than 30 years of coverage, mostly announcements of winners, in a variety of media; including in several peer reviewed journals like the Journal of Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, and Applied Clinical Trials in addition to business magazines and some main stream media. Given the numbers of publications celebrating the winners of the awards over a long period of time, I think we can say the world views this award as important enough to be newsworthy. To my mind this meets WP:SUSTAINED. However, I am voting weak keep because I could find no sources directly about the awards themselves (i.e. a history of the awards, or a secondary source about the awards outside of routine winner announcements). This latter type of source is really what is needed to prove WP:SIGCOV, and I simply can't find any in the sources I examined. That said, I have neither the time nor inclination to search through thousands of sources over a 30 year period to locate such a source.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Short excerpt here: I'm a newer to AfD, so I'm not sure if it is enough.  VTVL (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Wisconsin.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep enough coverage in sources, notable award around for many years. Andre🚐 21:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom and article's already-existing issue tags.--IndyNotes (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an important award started in 1986. A lot of coverage can be found online as well and it meets the [WP:GNG]. I have added 3 more references in the article and I can improve the article to address the "Existing Issue Tags" Fifthapril (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm seeing a few WP:LOTSOFSOURCES arguments. I'm open to being convinced that this is notable, but I'm not able to find significant coverage of this award by multiple independent RS myself. Would anybody be willing to provide a link to/provide a citation of specific articles/sources that they say makes this award notable? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am not sure that it being an important award (the main one is but be careful when searching for references as they also awards dozens of regional E&Y EOY awards) makes it notable. However, there are plenty of books that cover the topic which adds up to significant coverage, including this and this. Searching the topic in Google Books will show you the rest. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2022 (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.