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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:55, 16 March 2014 (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)

I have nominated this page for deletion as he is the 21 year old grandson of a celebrity, and notability is not inherited. Until he earns an achievement of his own, this page should be deleted. This page was nominated at an earlier time for deletion, and the result of the debate was delete which can be seen on this page. Thomasc93 (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Thomasc93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is determined on Wikipedia by multiple reliable sources. This is summarized at WP:42 or see WP:GNG. The sources are all about John Schlossberg. Those articles might exist only because he's the descendant of JFK, but the reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable. -- GreenC 17:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John Schlossberg's notability (or not) is not an "insult", that suggests personal bias. -- GreenC 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that was a hoax and is not factual. - Gloriamarie (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Factual that Schlossberg has been the repeated target of people who give him a hard time online. -- GreenC 06:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So have lots of people in daily life XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hackers who target the grandson of President Kennedy know what they are doing. -- GreenC 07:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one ever claimed he is notable for his family connections alone. He is notable for having multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, per WP:GNG. Those articles might exist only because he's the descendant of JFK, but the reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable. When you say "The sources that are articles actually about him just appear to be mainly websites." What does that mean? Of course the reliable sources are 'websites'. The websites include: Boston Common magazine, Newsday.com, New York Post, Today.com, New York Times, Associated Press. -- GreenC 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rules don't require that he do something only that he have something: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Daily Mail is not even used as a source in the article. -- GreenC 06:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in this case is that the sources provided don't say what he is significant for (his Kennedy family affiliations don't count). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for the special notability rules. The General GNG rules don't require it. Only that the topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also, we have articles on 6 month old babies so the idea that someone has to be notable for doing something is inaccurate. Though Schlossberg actually has done things (started a non profit, etc). -- GreenC 06:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't reliability of sources or how amount of info they contain. The problem is they don't say how he is significant to society or anything. As for 6 month old baby articles, lots of those probably shouldn't have articles yet if at all. The article also doesn't list anything notable about him. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't require "significant to society". Only significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable. -- GreenC 07:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling you've misunderstood the notability policies. Notability/Significance/Impact takes precedence over coverage. You could have tons of information, and even that wouldn't mean anything if it didn't establish how the subject is notable or really popular or anything. While it is true that things with established notability need coverage, not all things with coverage are notable. I mean, I could easily talk to various family and friends of anybody to gain info on that person, but that doesn't automatically make him/her notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned you have your own unique interpretation and have not read WP:GNG which says something is notable if it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's telling that while I continually cite the rules and quote them, you do not. -- GreenC 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person is not notable merely for being mentioned in sources. Rather, those sources must indicate the reason why the person is notable. Regarding Green C's citation of WP:GNG, I refer to the following portion of that very guideline:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article..."

So just because a person appears in sources doesn't mean that discussion is over. The context, or reason why they're being mentioned, is crucial. A person is not notable simply because they are related to someone notable, as indicated by WP:BLPFAMILY. If they were, then we'd have to give every single baby in the Kennedy family their own article the day they're born, which is obviously not the case. I'm not sure if this is explicitly spelled out by policy or guidelines, but it's certainly a implicit part of notability, and is underlined by an article's Lead section.

To give perhaps a more illustrative example, take me. I've been mentioned by name in at least four different reliable, secondary sources, all of which are independent of me, none of which are tabloids:

By Green C's rationale, I'd be notable, because I was in three separate reliable sources. But am I?

Of course not.

These four events are completely unrelated, different events with no connection between them. The first two are extremely trivial, and even in the case of the fourth, in which I played a more central role, it was for a small, local festival that so far, we've only had one of, and which itself is not notable. I don't think helping to organize a small festival or even emceeing panels on it makes a person notable, even if two or three different sources mention this. The event itself would have be large enough to be notable before notability could be conferred on those who help set it up, and even then, not necessarily. John Schlossberg is not notable, for the simple reason that his article doesn't even provide a reason for which he is notable that satisfies Wikipedia's criteria. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again that is an appeal to the special notability guidelines, which require a reason for being notability. The general notability guidelines do not require a specific reason or personal accomplishment, just significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for whatever reason those sources want. -- GreenC 01:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agee with GreenC. User:Nightscream, if you can't see any difference between your life's notability and John's, then there's a problem. Of course being a family member of the US president doesn't guarantee you an article on Wikipedia, but considering both John's family connection as well as his relatively wide media coverage by various reliable and secondary sources, and the fact that he's a writer (which in most cases is notable just for itself), all together make the case for keeping this article a much stronger one than deleting it, per Wikipedia's policies. Yambaram (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one (but yourself) says he is "default notable" - he is notable because of the existence of sources, as is described in WP:GNG. Those articles might exist only because he's the descendant of JFK, but the reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable. Those papers are not beholden to Wikipedia's rules in determining notability (!) but we are beholden to the papers when determining notability. -- GreenC 08:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent point. Plus whose to say the non-profit he started, an ongoing and successful organization, wouldn't have garnered him attention regardless of who he is. It can't be helped the sources talk about his famous family, including if he ever became President someday, they will still be talking about his famous grandfather. -- GreenC 16:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being an op ed writer or a college paper writer does not make someone notable. In fact, very few journalists are notable, even ones who have done a lot more writing than this guy. If he died today he would not be worth having an article on. He is not notable at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT .. an op-ed writer or founder of a non-profit can be notable, so long as there are multiple reliable sources about the subject, per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 02:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not. INHERIT is an essay. It is an essay called "Arguments to avoid making during an AfD". No one is making that argument. We are arguing Keep due to the guideline WP:GNG. Don't conflate the sources reasons for printing an article with our own rules, the sources aren't beholden to Wikipedia rules of argument in AfD! It's a logical fallacy and makes no sense. We determine notability based on what the real world thinks, and the real world thinks this topic is notable, as evidenced by the sources. -- GreenC 14:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, perhaps one day we should have a considered discussion as to whether it is of moment if our readership has interest in an article. If it is, perhaps we should reflect it in our notability standards. I believe that one of the purposes of the Project is precisely that -- to cover what is of interest to the readers. This article has attracted 38,000 views in the past 90 days. I don't think that the interests of the Project would be best served by deleting the very article such inquisitive readers are seeking.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care if the Schlossberg article is kept or tossed, but I'm not sure I agree with the logic that a person isn't notable if they're only known for being associated with someone who is notable. I realize that "other stuff exists" is not a good argument, but a good analogy: K Fed has an article and I think we can all agree that he fits in this category. Most folks would agree that he's notable. Why? Because people are talking about him and people want to read about him. It doesn't matter that he hasn't done a darn thing with his life except be a lazy gold digger and he wouldn't be notable if he hadn't married Britney Spears, the the fact of the matter is that he did and now he's famous. And he's notable because he's famous. I just don't think that we should give all that much thought to *how* someone came to be notable, just that they *are* notable. Basically because if we go by this logic, we could retrofit non-notability into pretty much everyone. This person wouldn't be notable if they hadn't been murdered or if they hadn't written this novel, we could apply that logic to everyone to question their notability. I realize I don't speak for everyone, but I think if there is a decent likelihood that a good amount of people will come on here looking for an article about a topic, we should consider that notability. :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing Kevin Federline's page, saying he "hasn't done a darn thing with his life except be a lazy gold digger" is rather oversimplified. Yes, he is easily best known for his marriage to Britney Spears, but he had previously been noted as a backup dancer for Michael Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Destiny's Child, Pink, and LFO. He is also noted as rapper. Just thought I should mention that. It is true that one's relationship (dating, marriage, engagement, etc.) can drastically increase the public attention he/she receives, though he/she is essentially not notable if not known for doing anything else. In the case of Jack Schlossberg here, absolutely nothing notable about him is known, not even being a writer for Yale and certainly not for being a student there. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are lot of people who have been back up dancers for famous people and aren't notable and even so, isn't that kind of a parallel move? Proximity to famous people and all that? And his rapping career... lol Bali88 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that lots of backup dancers aren't notable, though not sure what exactly you are saying with the "lol" regarding his rapping..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm just being mean to ol' kevin. Wasn't his music kind of a joke? Bali88 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't listened to it, so can't really say. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but this strikes me as a fringe interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED. When the reflected scrutiny the press gives a famous person doesn't find anything notable to comment on in the lives of their relatives, that is when NOTINHERITED offers useful advice. But when the reflected scrutiny does trigger coverage of new details -- unrelated to the famous person -- then the advice of NOTINHERITED no longer applies.

    There are some individuals, related to famous individuals in their industry, who chose to change their names, so they weren't riding on the coat-tails of their famous relatives. And I bet we have never heard of most of them, because they never did have press coverage to establish their own notability. By your argument would we have an article on Nicholas Cage, the nephew of famous director Francis Ford Coppola?

    Other 20 something youths are handsome; other 20 something youths go to Ivy League Universities; other 20 something youths write for their college newspapers, train to be EMTs, have harassing hoaxsters falsely "out" them as "gay"; some 20 something youths even give moving speeches to audiences full of somebodies -- without ever triggering coverage by reliable sources. And you know what? We don't make articles about those individuals. But an individual, like Schlossberg, who has considerable RS coverage -- we do cover those individuals -- their relationship with a famous relative has then become irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it says it is a guideline, and failing to follow it causes disruption to the community, it should remain a guideline.  Unrelated ad hominem arguments do not make it either more or less a guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Tarc, didn't you call upon the authority of NOTINHERITED, which is part of the essay WP:Arguments to avoid?
It really surprises me that you should call BEFORE a mere "suggestions", and are not acknowledging that it is part of the instructions as to how and when to nominate articles for deletion.

If there was a consistent logic to how much attention we should pay to wikidocuments, I think BEFORE would trump the advice of an essay like ATA. However User:DGG has made an important point, paraphrasing from memory, that the wikipedia is a complex, evolving, political entity, and, in practice, one can see that there are times when the community places more confidence in some essays, which theoretically, could be just a fringe opinion, than in other wikidocuments that, theoretically, one would consider of higher precedence.

In this particular case I think following the instructions of BEFORE is important. In this particular case I also think ATA has some relevant advice, but I think it is the advice in its WP:IDONTLIKEIT section, not its NOTINHERITED section, as I think a fair reading of the references shows the reporters behind those RS have written about Schlossberg, in detail, about aspects of his life that are not mere reflections of the notability of his more famous relatives. This is what we should require to agree notability has been established, and, like it or not, it has been established. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • John Quincy Adams got plenty of notability outside of his famous father and the Adams family, being a well-known politician who served as President. Merging Jack Schlossberg to Kennedy family is fine with me, though he isn't really notable on his own since being a college student at Yale isn't noteworthy and niether is writing for its news team. If he becomes a more professional writer (not saying Yale papers lack credibility or anything, but they're not really professional), then it would be more appropriate to keep. WP:BLP1E also states that being in the news by itself doesn't automatically mean someone is notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing up BLP1E, here and at the DRV, however BLP1E requires the person to be a "low profile individual", and the grandson of President John F. Kennedy is most certainly not a low profile individual, as evidenced by the large amount of media coverage over a long period of time. Furthermore there is no "single event", simply being someone is not an "event". The purpose of BLP1E is to protect the privacy of private individuals who otherwise had a brief flash of fame eg. a neighbor who witnessed a plane crash and got on the news with man on the street interviews. That person's privacy should be protected we shouldn't be writing Wikipedia articles due to a single event. That is why there is a clause on "low profile individuals" so BLP1E is not misapplied to people who are already well known like the Kennedys. --GreenC 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is definitely low profile compared to second cousins such as RFK's grandson Joe and Eunice's grandchildren Katherine and Patrick Schwarzenegger. Jack here is medium-profile at most. Being JFK's grandson doesn't make him high profile anymore than it does his sisters Rose and Tatiana. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you comparing him to other younger Kennedy cousins? I looked at Kennedy family, to see how many I recognized, and see how many had standalone articles, and how many didn't. I had never heard of most of them, and I don't think I had ever heard of any of the Kennedys who did not already have standalone articles.

    So long as the coverage of those other Kennedys is nonexistent, or is of a truly passing nature, not saying anything beyond something like "...also present was JFK's relative, young Foobar Kennedy" we should not cover Foobar Kennedy in a standalone article. But when Foobar Kennedy has significant coverage, over an extended period of time, coverage that covers different aspects of his life, then Foobar has met the criteria for a standalone article. When considering whether Foobar merits coverage, it doesn't matter if no one has yet started an article on Foobar's even more notable cousin. That is just an argument for someone to get cracking and start an article on that cousin too. Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being JFK's grandson doesn't make him high profile. That is a strawman, no one but yourself is saying that. Read what I said again: "the grandson of President John F. Kennedy is most certainly not a low profile individual as evidenced by the large amount of media coverage over a long period of time." Also you are misapplying NOTINHERIT essay. NOTINHERIT is based in the guideline WP:NRVE which says notability requires verifiable evidence. The essay is meant to block users who make wild and unsupported claims like "Being JFK's grandson makes him notable" (which no one here is saying, other than your strawman claims). NOTINHERIT is not meant to stop claims that are supported with evidence ie. sources. -- GreenC 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the way you're interpreting WP:NOTINHERITED. The guideline isn't meant to take away someone's notability if someone thinks it wasn't earned. It's meant to apply to people who otherwise are unknowns being included in wikipedia just because they have a relationship with a notable person. If he was a random college kid related to the Kennedy's who wasn't getting news coverage, I think the rule would apply. Alyson Hannigan's daughter, for example, doesn't really get much media coverage. If someone tried to include her, it would be deleted and rightfully so. She isn't notable just because her mother is notable. But if her daughter got a ton of media coverage and was widely discussed she would be notable. The idea that he isn't notable because he only writes for the Yale Daily News is faulty. Even if he wrote for a major magazine...the majority of writers for those publications don't meet notability guidelines, so I'm not sure how that changes things. Bali88 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even Conor Kennedy, who doesn't have his own article, got more media attention by dating Taylor Swift than Jack Schlossberg ever has. Conor doesn't have an article because of WP:BLP1E. If Conor fails notability, than Jack unquestionably fails it as well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be passing mention, not coverage about himself. Different things here. Dream Focus 00:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention or not, he definitely got more coverage than Jack. At least for now, there's no point in having an article on Jack when Conor fails notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conor Kennedy doesn't "fail notability". No one created an article yet. The non-existence of a topic has nothing to do with its notability. Another logical fallacy is you make a big deal about inheritance, but then make this inheritance-based argument that one Kennedy is the same as another. -- GreenC 02:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I meant. My point was that if Conor doesn't fulfill notability policies then Jack doesn't either, even if we don't use WP:INHERIT. I was simply using Conor as an example of someone who got lots of coverage but is not notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have it backwards. Start with GNG. It's the gold standard. If someone is notable by virtue of RSs covering the person in significant fashion -- for whatever reason whatsoever (even a non-notable reason) -- then they are notable. Period. End of story. No reason to weigh how notable the events are that lead the RSs to cover the person in significant fashion. None at all. The supplementary notability provisions are simply for cases where -- otherwise -- a subject is not covered sufficiently by RSs. That's all. (And I see, by this comment of yours, why some editors have viewed some closes differently than you have ... if this is how you interpret GNG).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've oversimplified notability. By the rationale you just gave, Conor Kennedy would've been notable for making numerous headlines while dating Taylor swift. As I previously mentioned, Conor fails notability per WP:BLP1E. Seeing to it that Conor got much more coverage during those months than Jack ever has at all, and Conor fails notability, then there is no doubt Jack fails notability. BLP1E indicates that one thing/event alone isn't enough to make someone notable. The "one thing" in this case is his general academic activities. Even Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth were known for more than just being charged with assassinations. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logic is faulty. -- GreenC
Epeefleche: My point is that the GNG allows for considerably greater amounts of subjective evaluation (e.g., "is this significant? what about that?" "how many sources should there be? Is this enough? Is that enough? What does Epeefleche think it should be? Does soandso disagree?" etc...), while specific notability criteria tend to be, well, more specific. As such, I'm saying evaluating the specific notability for each instance might be a more helpful way of determining some of the more subjective prongs of GNG when there's disagreement between one person's versus another person's evaluation thereof. It's not a "Period. End of story" issue, even if you, personally, see it as such. --slakr\ talk / 10:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GNG only allows for subjective evaluation of the GNG factors ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). But the factor you're weighing -- the level of notability of the event for which the subject is covered -- is simply not one of the GNG factors. If a subject meets the GNG factors, that is in fact the end of the inquiry. You're conflating the secondary test -- which is only applied if a subject fails to meet GNG -- with the GNG test. That's incorrect. As incorrect as it would be to say if a subject met the secondary test that it was not enough, because they failed to have substantial coverage. If you want to change what the delineated GNG factors are, to add the concept that the substantial coverage in RSs must be for a "notable" event, go ahead and try -- but don't construe a community guideline by inserting additional factors into it that you would like it to have ... but which it simply doesn't have.Epeefleche (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't clear, but let's recap: 1. I am saying GNG has several subjective elements, which leads to things like: a. someone saying "no, I don't think this guy meets the GNG," and b. someone telling that person they're factually wrong (case in point). 2. Because of #1, the only-used-if-GNG-is-failed specific notability guidelines (e.g., WP:BIO, WP:EVENT, etc...) should presumably, by the transitive property make the guy as easily or more easily passed as notable and, if he meets the GNG already, serve as failovers. 3. So, if this article is unable to meet even one of the as-or-more-easily-met specific notability guidelines despite all points of the subject's alleged notability having specific notability guidelines for each of them, then my point is that a blanket claim that "it's notable because it meets my minimum bar for the GNG," in the face of reliably failing the more case-specific criteria seems a little counter-intuitive (but obviously not necessarily wrong by any means). You obviously disagree, which is totally fine, because that's your opinion, which is what the discussion is all about. :P --slakr\ talk / 16:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because that's not what GNG says. GNG quite frankly does not require -- though you would like it to -- that the article meet a failover criteria. You're simply making up your own additional add-on criteria for GNG. And acting as though it is part of the consensus-built GNG criteria. It isn't. But perhaps the close here, and comments of others, will inform one of us.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2014 (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