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 delete. I don't normally close discussions as a delete on the basis of a single supporting !vote w/o at least one relist. However, in this case it is clear that the OP has done their due diligence and the editor who removed the Prod notice has chosen not to make an argument for keeping the page. That's enough for me. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Fulbrook[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Declined PROD. Original PROD reason was: I'm not finding much indication of notability. There's this brief piece in an industry magazine about him being headhunted to a new firm. This near-identical piece leads me to think it was based on a press release. Other than that, there's some name-drops and book credits, but nothing substantively about him as a person.

Decline reason from DGG's edit summary was: prob. notable. First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD--or draftify.

The decline completely ignores the fact that my PROD nomination made clear that I did check for sources - and failed to find any substantial and independent ones. There's no reason to draftify this decade-old article; if there's been no evidence of notability within the last ten years, another six months isn't likely to help.

Side note: I see the industry awards, but unless they are themselves "well-known and significant" (per WP:ANYBIO), or someone wrote substantially about the subject receiving one, they aren't indicators of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You are correct, there is not much out there beyond book credits ("Designed by John Fulbrook III") and industry biographies. I did not even see an interview. The awards might give some notability, but I doubt it given the way the design industry awards are so integrated with business interests.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I decline any prod where I think a community discussion is reasonably likely to find sources--that's about 1 a day, on the average, in additionto those I decline for other reasons. About half get deleted, half kept. Probably=probably, not that I necessarily support keeping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Which is fine, but I do find it a little irritating to see an edit summary that tells me to look for sources when my nomination specifically states I did look and failed to find any. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2019 (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.