Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack Schlossberg
Creations, AfDs and DRVs in chronological order: 
 * Article created (20 January 2011)
 * Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (27 January 2011 - deleted)
 * Article re-created (12 May 2013)
 * Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (2nd nomination) (2 November 2013)
 * Deletion review 1 (3 November 2013)
 * Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (3rd nomination) (16 March 2014)
 * Deletion review 2 (23 February 2014)
 * Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (4th nomination) (21 May 2014)
 * Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (5th nomination) (28 July 2015)
 * Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (6th nomination) (27 December 2017)

Scholossberg is a 1st year law student, who wrote for his college paper as an undergrad, helped some of his high school friends organize volunteer efforts, got photographed a few times because his mom was an ambassador, and got a bunch of human interest and tabloid coverage as afterglow from very famous relatives. He has done absolutely nothing that even comes close to making him notable, and the coverage is not at all of a level to establish notability. I know this has gone through discussions before, but they have all ignored the rule that we write articles based on the preesent not on possible future situations, and at present Schlossberg is a non-notable law student. This may change in the future, but he is non-notable at present. They were also under the old name of this article, which makes it a bit confusing. I accidentally at first created this as number 4. I also do not know how to link the previous 3 or so nominations to this one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 05:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 05:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 05:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Nothing has changed from the previous AfDs except new additional sources have been added. This is a notable individual for all the reasons laid out over the course of many years by dozens of editors in multiple AfDs and DRVs. The nom believes "He has done absolutely nothing that makes him notable" .. he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notability is not an award for achievement, anyone can be notable for any reason, including public and press interest. -- Green  C  14:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This guy gets even more coverage now than he did in previous years when I participated in some of the past deletion discussions for him. I just clicked the NEWS link at the top of this AFD and see results from as recent as Nov 17, 2017 from People magazine where he talks about climate change.  Please stop wasting time trying to delete this.  It meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article.   D r e a m Focus  15:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable socialite; does not appear to have achieved anything significant. The article is full of trivia, such as:
 * "On April 10, 2016, he and Caroline greeted the then U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry who arrived at the Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station..." Etc.
 * Being on a best-dressed list is not a claim of significance. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a society page in a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: The following two keep/delete recommendations were moved from Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (4th nomination). The other AfD is a duplicate and concurrent AfD nomination, and these recommendations were moved to merge the two AfDs.
 * Keep Though I am a bit swayed by K.e.coffman's comments, as I agree just being a socialite isn't enough, there's considerable mention in press of this individual. Notability isn't inherited, to be sure. While he hasn't done anything notable yet, he does attract considerable attention in the press . This is a sufficient pass per WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think five AfDs and 2 DRVs says the community has well-considered this topic.  I looked no further than one DRV, where I found this comment, "The delete voters did not address the sources presented and only argued against the non-existent opinion of "he's notable because he's a Kennedy."    Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note There are two concurrent nominations here.  I have requested an administrator at Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (4th nomination).  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - People may only notice him because of his relations and physical appearance and he may have done nothing particularly remarkable, but he has enough coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete --WP:TOOSOON if ever. WP is not the Social Register Rhadow (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the subject qualify as a model? No. As an academic? No. As a social entrepreneur? No. The argument is that he earned notability by the quantity of press he gets -- press he wouldn't get but for the other seven people mentioned in the piece. Rhadow (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Kennedy family is America's "royalty". He is active in noble things (philanthropy, etc.) which seals the deal as far as his "nobility".desmay (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Royalty? "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States". Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution


 * Jack Schlossberg · 7/1/2016 - 11/30/2017 · 659,116 pageviews. In the years before then the page had a different name, so more views then as well.  He gets coverage for quite a large variety of things, not just passing mention because of who his famous relative was.   D r e a m Focus  02:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now the argument is this: he has a Wikipedia article, therefore he is notable. That is circular logic of the first order. Rhadow (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He is notable because he clearly passes WP:GNG. I just thought that an interesting fact, how many people come here to read about him.   D r e a m Focus  12:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It gets 1000 to 4000 views a day or 100s of thousands a year, plus it would create a couple hundred red backlinks which would be disruptive. The last AfD was closed by User:Sandstein with this prophetic message: . This remains true and John Pack Lambert was a participant in that AfD and should take heed. It's wasting everyone's time and becoming disruptive. -- Green  C  16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "it would create a couple hundred red backlinks" -- Now the argument is that incumbency trumps the innate notability of the subject. I'll remember that. Rhadow (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The notability "argument" for keep is WP:GNG as noted in the Keep votes. -- Green  C  16:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would create a bunch of red backlinks because his name's been put on a bunch of templates. I don't know how many pages he's actually linked from. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons that can also be seen in Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith, sometimes - not often, but sometimes, just being a scion gets you sufficient attention in WP:RS to carry you past WP:GNG. Even though you have never "done" anything.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.