Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Fulton


 * 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. S warm  ♠  04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Fulton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. I decided not to prod it but to take it here directly, as there are two sources on the subject: one interview and another one with the (presumably written by the subject) "best and worst decisions". They don't seem sufficient, IMHO, to add to the BIO requirements for serious, in-depth and reliable coverage. His company (Fulton Umbrellas) is likely notable (due to the tabloid/fashion coverage of the royal family using their products...), and at best I can suggest that this may be redirected there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are at least three detailed pieces specifically about him plus the additional coverage in pieces about his company and an RS (Daily Mail) which asserts that he invented the birdcage umbrella. That is more than enough for GNG in my view. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which "detailed pieces"? This is not about him, but his company. This appears written by him. All I see is one interview in niche portal (Something Jewish, ) and an article, half-based on quotes from the subject, similar to an interview, in MoneyWeek . The latter, btw, is a series of weekly or so columns with millionaires . So in the end we have only two very borderline sources. I don't think that's enough to put one in an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the cumulative effect of the coverage across a range of sources, including that of his company with which he is almost synonymous, that ensures the GNG is met. I will grant you that only the Something Jewish article is in depth but if you add that to the rest I think it's sufficient in total. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep If his umbrellas are good enough for the Queen then he's good enough for us. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. His umbrellas do not convey notability to him, not without sources about him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The subject is notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid rationale.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. There are three sources, Management Today, MoneyWeek, and SomethingJewish, which we can see from the tiles, "COMING UP FAST: Arnold Fulton, Fulton Umbrellas", "My first Million: Arnold Fulton", and "Interview with Arnold Fulton" are specifically about him. We have several sources which are more about Fulton Umbrellas, and these provide additional information about him. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Gryffindor (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fulton Umbrellas as a compromise as the article is still questionably overall about him to suggest solid independent notability, may be best known for that. SwisterTwister   talk  05:39, 10 February 2016 (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.