Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Glowinski (2nd nomination)

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 From the comments below, it seems that the discussion lies somewhere between consensus to delete and no consensus to do anything. As Steve Smith is a trusted administrator and functionary, I will take him at his word that the subject requested deletion. Default to delete. NW (Talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The emails between Steve Smith and Kent Glowinski have been forwarded toOTRS. NW (Talk) 16:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Glowinski

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

Individual at the fringes of WP:N, if covered by it at all, and the article is attracting negative attention. The subject has requested deletion. Steve Smith (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "subject has requested deletion"? Where? Unless tinytory is the person in question, I see no evidence of the article subject wanting it deleted, nor do I see why that matters anyway, as I don't see any "I don't want an article about me so delete it" directive in WP:BLP. The original creator of the article wanting deletion doesn't matter as there have been over a dozen other contributors to the article. Back on the subject of deletion, the subject of the article appears to be at least marginally notable, same as last time 2 years ago and the article is well sourced in compliance with WP:BLP, and "article is being harassed" is a possible rationale for protection, not deletion. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject requested deletion in an e-mail to me. Steve Smith (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How relevant is that to this discussion. If Paris Hilton asked us to delete her article, would we?--Milowent (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask why; what matters is that until Wikipedia is able to offer article subjects some guarantee that their articles will be treated responsibly and professionally, we should accept their requests for deletion. As for the relevance, there is ample precedent for the subject's wishes being taken into account in AFD closures: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...many more examples available on request. Steve Smith (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume he is asking because not all his press is universally positive.--Milowent (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable. This appears to be a biography of a living person of marginal importance and interest. Appears to have been politically active a decade ago, but did not hold any "official position" within a political office, party or movement, for that matter. Voting and volunteering is not notable. I suggest delete. Old katlady (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC) — Old katlady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete "Narcissistic Personality Disorder"? Sounds like a scientific/medical work. No, it's an apparently self-published book of 'poems'. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=98FnIP2TEi8C&dq=%22Narcissistic+Personality+Disorder%22+Glowinski%27&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=C2eqS-LMD4W80gTK8-HHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false (I hate those Google links...) Subject of article seems to have been a rather thrusting teenager, but not to have achieved much as a result. The McGill Daily is a student newspaper, and I don't feel that contributing there is particularly notable. 'His latest article "Don’t get enough credit? The need for an impartial consumer Credit Report Appeal Tribunal in Ontario" is in the process of being published.' OK. Where and in what, and remember WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tinytory may or may not be the subject of the article, but was the creator. As such, Tinytory would be entitled to request deletion by blanking, but too many other hands had stirred the broth by that time. I usually feel inclined to say Keep when the subject apparently wants out, but there doesn't seem to be the controversy element involved here. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You usually feel inclined to say keep when the subject wants out? Out of malice, or what? Steve Smith (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to feel there is something notable that doesn't fit with the vanity article created. I've seen rather more than one case of this. Peridon (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Delete I know (through other professional persons) the subject in question. Professionally, he's a whip without doubt and done some noteworthy things as an individual person. But in all honesty, I just do not see him meeting the well-known requirements. As Peridon submits, the "Narcissistic Personality" book is poetry, not a scholarly text. In furtherance, the upcoming article on a proposed "Credit Report Appeal Tribunal" is simply not attributable (re: Peridon - "Where and in what"). Again, this is not to impugn the character of the subject, I would just agree with the foregoing comments on deletion.Ellismoo999 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Ellismoo999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Silver seren^C 01:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Comment Peridon Agree on WP:CRYSTAL. Forgot to quote. Out. Ellismoo999 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am absolutely appalled at the state of this AfD. I have seen absolutely no attempt by anyone here to actually look up any sources on the man. After a simple, easy, less than five clicks to get to search, I found a incredibly large amount of articles on him for various things. I took the liberty of adding them into the article, they just need to be switched from being external links to references. Silver seren^C 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginally notable living person who requests deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how he is marginally notable? He has enough coverage in reliable sources. Silver seren^C 01:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not famous. He's not infamous. He's just a guy. We delete articles of people who aren't famous who ask for it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject's lawsuits (over gambling and student loan repayment) have given him sufficient mainstream RS coverage to meet the GNG and hence N. He is not a non-public figure, so his own opinion on the article is essentially irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We created this page on the subject years back when circumstances would have rendered him notable within meaning of WP:N; however, those circumstances changed and subject remains relatively unknown WP:NPF. Keep in mind "profile" is dynamic WP:LOWPROFILE. As for above comments about civil lawsuits: if Wikipedia is to retain articles on relatively unknown subjects solely because unproven allegations in civil lawsuits appear in the media through malice/pure interest or otherwise, almost anyone in a litigation (divorces, property disputes, etc.), which often become heated, would become notable and deserving of a page. Wikipedia is not here to parrot out relatively tenuous and unlinked data appearing in media here and there and pertaining to unknown individuals. If the criteria for being notable is (1) civic involvement at any point in life and (2) being involved in one or more legal disputes at any point in life, then 90% of the population is famous. There also seems to be a zeal to keep articles solely in spite of someone who wants them removed. Tinytory (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Tinytory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Silver seren^C 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. It doesn't matter that he is relatively unknown or that he is low-profile, that does not affect notability. It just means the article needs to be carefully written, but not that it should be deleted. And being involved in a rather well-publicized dispute does garner notability and this is a large battle between the Canadian government and one man. Also, the casino dispute is involving changes of law, which is also a big deal. There are enough references from reliable news sources to show that the man is notable. Silver seren^C 14:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It just means that the article needs to be carefully written". And once Wikipedia demonstrates any ability whatever to ensure that such articles are carefully written, then that might be a viable policy. Steve Smith (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense. Wikipedia's articles are done by the users. It is up to you and me to ensure that. Do you not feel capable of doing it right or something? Dissing the project does not a valid point make. Silver seren^C 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel personally capable of protecting every BLP, no. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hipocrite. Notability is marginal at best. I also think that when people of questionable notability request deletion of their articles, their feelings should be taken into account. AniMate 03:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the policy that states that that is what we should do? Silver seren^C 18:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that we needed a policy page that tells us to behave like decent human beings. AniMate 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't? How long have you been on this project? You should really pay more attention. Steve Smith (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off, the nominator has not given us the log link for the person asking for deletion, which is normal to be done in cases like this. Without that link, we have no way of verifying whether the person this article is about ever asked that. Second, we're here to build an encyclopedia. We can't cater to the people we write about, just because they don't like the truthful, verifiable information about them we put on here. If there is bad information, it's because they got themselves into a bad situation. That is not our concern. Our concern is for the articles and the project. Silver seren^C 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was wrong. We do need a policy page that tells us to be decent human beings. AniMate 18:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta go a little further than this. WP:BLP wasn't created to protect articles, it was created to protect the subjects of these articles. According to the policy: "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." You wanted relevant policy, there you go. This is why we consider the subjects wishes. You should read WP:BLP and actually learn what it says. AniMate 19:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That part of WP:BLP pertains to editing that defames a person or slants an article in a negative light. It does not pertain to the fact that, if there are sources about osmething he did wrong and he doesn't like that there is coverage of this wrong thing he did, then we should delete the article for him. That's not how it works. For example, the gambling thing. That certainly portrays him as being a not really smart person who drinks too much. But that is not us making some sort of conjecture off of the sources, that would be from the fact that the incident happened at all, which is covered in the sources. We do not cater to people that do things that put themselves in a bad light. It has nothing to do with being decent human beings. If we held to that, then every article about a scandal on Wikipedia should be taken off, because it portrays them in a bad light. That is not how policy works. That is not how WP:BLP works. Silver seren^C 19:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and request. Simple. Jack Merridew 06:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me. Article has plenty of references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I happen to believe that we can and should consider the subject's wishes. Unless a subject is of such overwelming notability, as reflected in reliable sources, that omitting them does injury to the project, I favor deletion. Thus, while I feel that the subject meets our minimum requirements for notability, I am willing to accede to his request. Steve - is this email an OTRS issue? If so, please post the ticket number. Obviously, if it's an ARBCOM thing we'll just take your word for it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually neither; he contact the oversight list, but since it wasn't an oversight matter I took it off-list and corresponded with him personally. I could forward the e-mail in which he requested deletion to OTRS, if that would help. Steve Smith (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Essentially I agree with Xymmax that the case for notability is not so high here that we should ignore the subject's request. And I say this as an editor who added references and then recommended "keep" at the previous AfD. I can understand Silver seren's argument, but on balance I think it's reasonable to honour the subject's request in this sort of case where there are multiple news articles covering various minor aspects of the person's life and times. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news about this guy's life to make him notable. You don't get to erase an article about yourself, just because you don't like attention towards something you've done that the news reports on. I restored part of what was removed in this edit [1], and discussed on the talk page how it was easy enough to find the news article mentioned as the source for those paragraphs of information. Dream Focus 08:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG. Filest (aktl) 08:59, 1 April 2010 (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.