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. --VS ^talk 07:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Glowinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

no claim of notability since March 2007-just fails WP:BIO, AFDing per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks good sources and fails to establish the subject's importance. Kent Glowinski appears non notable at this time. --Stormbay (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject "Kent Glowinski" is a notable figure in Federal Canadian Politics, the Canadian Legal System, the media, and the Canadian literature community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordonlamontagne (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the accomplishments and references add up to notability, even though he has not held elective office. --Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He has received media attention for various things over the years, in particular his political activism while he was a teenager. I've started adding references; there's enough there to pass WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bunch of minor media mentions does not add up to notability. Vagary (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree if these were trivial mentions, but they are not. Many of the articles are about Glowinski and only him. Furthermore, the articles by Mclintock and by Rowlands are full-length profiles of him. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:05, 31 January 2008 (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.