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 no consensus. I don't think we can quite call it a consensus to keep, but that's the clear majority opinion, and the chance to obtain a "delete" consensus in any future nomination appears remote in the extreme.  Sandstein  17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Schlossberg[edit]

AfDs and DRVs for this article:
John Schlossberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been brought up many, many times at AfD, and having read through the arguments of past listings, there are sources, but his coverage is because he's a Kennedy, and so are his activities. Thus, this is WP:NOTINHERITED. Kennedy-related activities aside, Schlossberg is a non-notable college student. If he goes into politics, and makes something of himself therein, then we can consider an article, but in three years, nothing has shown itself to meet either GNG or independent notability. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Sorry, it makes a big difference. From that section: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." So it's not at all "an argument to avoid." Would Schlossberg be hosting Profiles in Courage or be at the Kennedy Library for big events if he wasn't a Kennedy? No, because those are Kennedy family events. Anything he does for or with the Kennedys is therefore not usable to ascertain GNG. Having read what the result of that section is, it seems like a pretty valid line of argument - I'm not sure why it's in there as an argument to avoid. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument to be avoided is the notion that notability is inherited just from having notable relatives. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable because he has been frequently covered in RS. It's not our place to decide he's not notable because his coverage is because of who he is related to. Do you understand the difference? —МандичкаYO 😜 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (people), the notability criteria for biographies, indicates that who a person is does affect to an extent whether he/she is notable. See the WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY sections for more. The sheer number of references (regardless of reliability) in this case existing that mention him is entirely moot since family affiliations alone are not enough to warrant an article and he isn't noted for anything significant on his own. WP:NOTNEWS also states that people or events simply being mentioned in the news aren't always notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIOFAMILY says "mention their family members in passing", these sources are full on about Schlossberg and his accomplishments, they are not "passing" mentions, they extend over years. Your contention that he has done nothing notable is your opinion, but one the press evidently disagrees, as do I. He has done things. -- GreenC 18:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that WP:BIOFAMILY also states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person" as I previously noted, and was trying to emphasize that family affiliations alone aren't enough to make someone notable. As for "the press evidently disagrees", see WP:NOTNEWS, which states the following:
  • "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be"
  • "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."
The number of sources and detail on him is therefore entirely moot since they're on things that are family-affiliated (i.e. JFK's 50th death anniversary ceremony) and/or trivial (i.e. Yale activities). Meeting WP:Notability (people) is more nuanced than simply being covered in reliable sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever said he is notable simply for being a Kennedy? He has done things (writer, presenter, NGO founder). There are sources that talk about those things. But it doesn't even matter, people can be notable *for no reason at all*, there is no requirement they "do" something. The rule your quoting is a general guideline; when a person has so many sources devoted entirely to that person over many years in many magazines and newspapers, is internationally known, it defies imagination how they could not be notable. As has been confirmed over and over in these many AfDs and DRs. Also worth mentioning the article has been visited 10,269 times in the last 30 days and is linked by 190 articles, though I know if other people derive utility from the article is not your concern. -- GreenC 01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we disagree that he has not done something notable. I think he has. In cases of disagreement it would nice to stick to the core Guideline which is stated at WP:GNG. The sources are the arbitrator. -- GreenC 18:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What notable thing has Schlossberg ever done? Name one.Being a college student is in and of itself never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is a writer for which he has been written about in the press. He is an awards presenter, for which the press has written about him. He co-founded ReLight, for which he was written about in the press. The sources should be the arbitrator of notability, the sources clearly believe him to be notable per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He writes for a college paper, which is not enough to be notable. He has presented minor awards, which is not enough to make him notable. Relight is not notable, and his involvement in it was even more minor. Wikipedia is not news and everyone who gets mentioned in news sources is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been reliable in previous AfDs and DRs. There is no consensus at WP:RSN that NYP is unreliable. Wikipedia link to it thousands of times. -- GreenC 14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources actually DO have to be independent AND reliable. Don't overlook the necessity of reliable sources for articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out, I must have got confused too. (That happens when one continues to edit Wikipedia until after midnight...) I corrected my statement. But my !vote stands, the sources in the article, and more found in web searches, being reliable enough. Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for assertions that Keep votes are advocating including his article simply because he is a Kennedy, arguments for deletion might also advocate deleting this article because he is a Kennedy. Either consideration is based on fame which is different from notability. Liz Read! Talk! 13:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he has written opinion pieces, but those are not "third-party independent sources." Also, they are written because they give a "Kennedy perspective", not because the subject has achieved a level of knowledge in an area. The NYT piece is about "JFK's legacy as seen by his grandson." Therefore, if he was not that relation, he would not be writing that article. The USA Today piece is about two people receiving the Kennedy "Profiles in Courage" Award, and the HuffPo is just a verbatim copy of that same article. That's why just posting links is not automatic notability. I'd also note the last part of Schlossberg's mini-bio on the HuffPo article is "grandson of JFK." So again, these sources are related to his family connections - he didn't write the "Profiles" pieces as an independent person - he presented the awards. So effectively they're not independent of the subject, and again, are related to something he does because of his family, not because of himself. MSJapan (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America1000 15:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I second a 2-year moratorium on future AfD nominations of this article. Enough time and effort was wasted already. Kraxler (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTAGAIN says "This is a good argument in some circumstances" and this is one of them. But Kraxler wasn't even making a !vote argument, rather voicing his frustration with so many AfDs. WP:EFFORT is about work on the article not the AfD as Kraxler clearly says. Essays are not rules or policy, they are not black and white, they leave plenty of room for other interpretation and POV, they are generic by design. And when overused they are irritating :) -- GreenC 05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support a two-year moratorium on future nominations. It is absurd this is now in the fifth round of AfD. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is already the 7th round, including two at DRV. Kraxler (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether he meets GNG or not, there is no doubt that WP:NOTNEWS (which is policy) applies as I mentioned above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to rehash it, but I pointed out already in my !vote that some !voters confuse "notability" with "importance" or "achievements". notability is sometimes attained by achievements (like holding an important elective office, under WP:NPOL; or playing in pro football, under WP:FOOTY; people who qualify under these rules don't need any over coverage, only the facts and their existence must be proven, possibly by primary sources), but mostly notability is established by being talked about (that's the essence of WP:GNG) . It's not necessary for the college boy to do anything, if the press (i.e. multiple reliable sources independent of the subject) talk about him, he becomes notable. WP:NOTNEWS applies to ephemeral mentions of news items that happen and pass, not to somebody who is the continued target of press coverage. Kraxler (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, but I think what you are missing is the causative. Schlossberg is covered, yes, but not because he's Schlossberg, but because he's "Grandbaby JFK." Hosting the Profiles in Courage isn't independent - he hosts it because he's a Kennedy family member - it's a Kennedy thing JFK started. When every headline about him mentions JFK or his connection to JFK, then it's reasonable to think that JFK is the point of interest, not Schlossberg. It's not "what did Schlossberg do?" it's "what is JFK's grandson up to today?" The point of interest (and therefore his notability) is not Schlossberg as an individual, it's what he is and what he does as a descendant of JFK. If you don't believe me, read the sources. Ignore the headline, even; they all start the same way in the text. Then compare it with, say, George Clooney, who is often identified as "the actor," not "the son of Rosemary." In spite of a famous relationship, that is an example of personal notability. Schlossberg hasn't got that at all, because nobody cares what he does aside from being a Kennedy. Is there any coverage of his EMT training? No. Has anyone critiqued his Yale articles, or commented on his academic work? No. Are they certain that you need to know who his grandfather was? Definitely. MSJapan (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are most surely about Schlossberg, and in-depth. Yes of course they all mention JFK's grandson (or "Grandbaby JFK" as you put it). That can't be avoided he will always be seen in that light even if he becomes President. Ignoring INHERIT which is an essay, the only real guideline that says anything directly on this is WP:BIOFAMILY which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." That would be true if there were no or few sources directly about Schlossberg, where he was only mentioned in passing or listed as a relative. The guideline goes on to confirm this: "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." It does not say or imply that to become notable they must achieve something spectacular. All that is required is WP:GNG and that is easily done here. The argument that he doesn't meet GNG because the sources are nullified by BIOFAMILY is circular reasoning and illogical, nothing in the guidelines says to ignore reliable sources. -- GreenC 23:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The notability criteria for biographies (see WP:BIO) is actually more nuanced than simply the GNG requirement of being significantly covered in reliable secondary sources; one must also be noted for something on their own a.k.a. not based on family affiliations. Not sure if they have to be "spectucular" per se, but it has to be something they alone are noted for. As previously indicated, he's pretty much only noted for being Kennedy, which isn't enough on its own for a separate article. Additionally, being mentioned in the press doesn't always make one notable per the policy WP:NOTNEWS. We have specific notability criteria for specific types of articles for a reason, so WP:BIO should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO is a Subject-specific guideline. According to WP:NOTE (top of page #1): "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". So yes it is simply about meeting GNG, though you are free to request otherwise if you can get consensus for it. The issue of NOTNEWS was correctly addressed by Kraxler 4 replies above. I believe we are spinning wheels here and repeating the same positions. -- GreenC 00:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've oversimplified it. First of all, "presumed to be notable" doesn't automatically mean "is notable". Secondly, there's more on the page that talks about instances where a bio isn't notable enough (such as WP:BIOFAMILY and WP:BIO1E, though it is WP:BIOFAMILY that applies here). I mention NOTNEWS because much of the pieces in the press are just for trivial things (i.e. Attending ceremony for 50th anniversary of JFK's death). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've oversimplified things. First of all, WP:BIOFAMILY doesn't automatically means "is not notable". Secondly, there are things on that page that don't apply here. -- GreenC 02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snuggums, it doesn't matter if some of the coverage in trivial. The coverage mentioned as passing the WP:GNG is all that matters, and that proves he is notable. Dream Focus 02:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't "all that matters", especially when a person is only noted for family affiliations. Also, I wasn't saying every possible scenario listed in BIO applied; my point was that WP:BIOFAMILY indicates family affiliations by themselves are not enough for someone to have a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is getting ample coverage on his own. How he first got attention is irrelevant, he is now getting attention for achievements he does on his own. He has two sisters, but they don't get the coverage he does. Dream Focus 03:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please show me Schlossberg's entry in a "real-life" encyclopedia? I'm also not sure why the apparent overall quantity of coverage (regardless of depth) also seems to be outweighing quality (and depth) of coverage, when the latter is the underpinning of WP policy. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2015 (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.
More