Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (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 keep. The nomination has received little support and plenty of opposition and so there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Schlossberg
AfDs for this article:
 * Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (27 January 2011 - deleted)
 * 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)
 * Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (2nd nomination) (7th nomination) (4 February 2021)
 * – ( View AfD View log )

American is not a monarchy. We have no heirs presumptive, and as Massachusetts showed last year people have stopped bowing to the Kennedy family and their false presumptions they are better than the rest of us. There is nothing about this guy that is anywhere near notability, and the fact that foreign journalists disrespect our Republicanism and create articles built on false assumptions of inheritance of office and power is not in and of itself a good reason to have an article on someone who has never made any notable accomplishments John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As was well pointed out in the last deletion discussion, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and that is the level of many of the sources. Also Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause. Early Wikipedia was a madhouse of unregulated article creation with no notability guidelines at all. So the fact that this article has sat around a long time is not in and of itself a source of showing notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - nominations for deletion generally go smoother if there are policy based reasons for deletion rather than arguments based on emotion. In this case that would be:
 * "Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not INHERITed." 174.212.238.163 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - a good WP:ATD would be to merge encyclopedic content to the closest notable direct relative's article and redirect. 174.212.238.163 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This the 8th (!) AfD (missing one of the list) plus 2 DRVs - how long will this ridiculous campaign to delete the article continue?? Each time the article has added new sources and expanded. It is even more notable today then any time in the past. The deletion arguments are flawed - the topic clear passes WP:GNG. Furthermore INHERIT essay has nothing to do with it, read it now, including the disclaimer at the top - it is arguments to avoid making during an AfD, that is all, nobody here is making the argument "Keep because he has a famous relative", the argument is Keep because of GNG. The claim made above by Johnpacklambert that this article has "sat around" unexamined is obviously ludicrous in light of the many failed AfDs, extensive edit history and vast number of page views this article receives daily. --  Green  C  17:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is still no substance. He is just a run of the mill graduate student which in no way makes him notable. The coverage is vaucuous, passing, incidental or tabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Those characterizations of the sources are extremely opinionated and not supported on examination. -- Green  C  17:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment If you look, the first discussion deleted this article, and nothing has fundamentally changed in the last decade to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just look through the article history and see how far it has developed. That first version that was deleted looks nothing like it is today. --  Green  C  17:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Green  C  17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per the notability guideline on articles about people, the relevant guideline for consideration of deletion of this article, which is a biography. The guideline states that a person is notable enough for an article "if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The guideline also states, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Although it's too bad that so many sources considered as tabloids have been cited in this article, Jack Schlossberg has been the subject of many other articles, which are independent from each other and the subject himself and are in reliable and reputable publications. Here are several examples:
 * You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. -  t u coxn \talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. -  t u coxn \talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. -  t u coxn \talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. -  t u coxn \talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. -  t u coxn \talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. -  t u coxn \talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. -  t u coxn \talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No all those are cases of coverage not based on anything he did, but based on being related to other people. This all fails any reasonble understanding of not inherited rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a completely inaccurate characterization of the sources. Even if he became president of the USA they will continue to mention his famous family, nobody can avoid that shadow. Sorry you don't like how he became notable. I don't like how some people because notable either but I don't go around trying to delete those articles. . -- Green  C  22:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep And stop the same guy from nominating it for deletion yet again. This is ridiculous we have to keep doing this.  Reliable sources were found, he passes the general notability guidelines getting coverage for things other than who was related to.   What I mentioned in one of the past AFDs, I participating in multiple ones, https://people.com/celebrity/jack-schlossberg-president-john-f-kennedys-grandson/ https://www.today.com/news/jfks-grandson-takes-center-stage-9-things-we-know-about-2D11635076 https://nypost.com/2013/02/27/jfks-heir-apparent/ plenty of information about him, regardless of who he was related to.   D r e a m Focus  20:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, if you look at the coverage it is virtually all incidental to who his relatives are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We had this discussion last time you sent this to AFD. I've been in previous AFDs for this as well.  They give plenty of coverage to him as a person on his own.  The fact they always mention whose grandson he is, doesn't change that.   D r e a m Focus  20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (or redirect to Caroline) - He's notable because reliable sources cover him, due to Camelot's continued pull. The comparison to royalty is apt; divorce him from his family, and he's a guy who ... went to Harvard. Caro7200 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You recognize they are notable because of the sources. There is no rule, policy, guideline or anything that disqualifies a notable person because of how they became notable. --  Green  C  22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I recognize that Wikipedia very often considers living persons to be notable simply because they are covered, in whatever contexts and for whatever reasons, in reliable sources. Not because the subjects have actually accomplished anything of note. Caro7200 (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that Caro7200 admits "he's notable" and understands that Wikipedia "considers living persons to be notable simply because they are covered, in whatever contexts and for whatever reasons, in reliable sources." That's exactly what's going on in the article about Jack Schlossberg, who has received received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. -  t u coxn \talk 00:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also important to note that coverage of the Kennedys in People or the Post is primarily about attracting eyeballs and therefore revenue. And it's also important to note that when the article was originally deleted, in 2011, the subject was mostly known as a Kennedy who attended school.  In 2021, the subject is mostly known as a Kennedy who attended school and, I guess, accompanies his mother to events.  As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected to Caroline. Caro7200 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Every commercial news source is in the business of attracting eyeballs and making money. Your requirement for him to have done something more (what?) is not supported by any rule, policy or guideline, it's setting the bar higher than exists, we gauge notability based on coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about people who are less accomplished than Kennedy, and we do not reject articles because of how their notability was achieved. -- Green  C  17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC) (sig orignally posted 03:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Ah, yes, we can pretend that, when covering heirs and socialites, the NYT, for example, and People or the Post have the exact same motivations. I see this as most similar to an Alyssa Carson situation...  And, as per the "weak" aspect of the vote, I don't think that it's completely unreasonable that JFK's grandson has an article primarily because he's JFK's grandson... Caro7200 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah a rare sighting of WP:INHERIT: . This is precisely what WP:INHERIT is made for, it is an argument to avoid in AfD. Arguing keep/delete because of who he is violates WP:INHERIT. We have articles because of sources. --  Green  C  17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I did advocate last year for keeping an article on one of Oswald's girlfriends ... so perhaps I've become a soft touch when it comes to the Kennedys. Caro7200 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. If this were the first time this article had come to AfD, I might have recommended deletion, but this article has passed AfD with a "keep" twice before, and the subject hasn't gotten less notable in the intervening three years since the last "keep" verdict. In fact, he has since been the subject of articles in People, Esquire, and the New York Post. So he seems to pass the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A few editors cited coverage in the New York Post to support Keep !votes. According to recent consensus, this source is "generally unreliable" which means that it doesn't contribute to notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW of the 30 citations in the article only 2 are to the New York Post, one of which reports his father died in a plane crash thus could easily be replaced with another source, such as a book. -- Green  C  19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons cited above and in the 7 prior deletion discussions. Easily passes WP:GNG.  WP:Notability is not transient.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage is there. The anti-Kennedy nomination statement ("as Massachusetts showed last year people have stopped bowing to the Kennedy family and their false presumptions they are better than the rest of us") concerns me. We haven't bowed Of course it'll talk about his being a Kennedy. The nomination statement shows a bias against the Kennedys that is concerning. Nominator's feelings on the Kennedys are so strong that they seem to affect his judgment of notability. He should strike some of the nomination statement, IMO. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-Kennedy statements have been there in most of the AfDs, like dog whistles. We keep having these repetitive AfDs. --  Green  C  14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand the impulse for Egalitarianism and anti elitism. I have some sympathy for that.
 * And true enough, the Kennedys, like some other wealthy families, act like pretended Royalty.
 * But all of that has nothing to do with notability as it is understood in Wikipedia. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per snow, as well as the fact that the premise of this nomination is just some kind of rant about the user's person beliefs about the media. "the fact that foreign journalists disrespect our Republicanism and create articles built on" is admitting that the subject meets notability guidelines for a WP page. Not a matter for AFD at all.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is this a personal vendetta by the nominator? I dropped eleven sources in the last AfD nom for this article which was started by the same nominator. The notability of this person (scion only known for looking somewhat attractive he may be) is approaching indisputability. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep if America looks like a monarchy from time to time, it's not Wikipedia's fault. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2021 (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.