Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (4th 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. Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  03:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

John Schlossberg
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, no significant coverage in any reliable third-party sources. While it was previously argued in past AfD's that the article met WP:GNG, here is what I see when looking at the references: Most of the sources available that cover him are simply trivial mentions in news outlets and/or simply gossip, which is where I also bring up WP:NOTNEWS. If not redirected to Kennedy family, this article needs to be deleted and stay that way unless he gets significant non-trivial independent coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources. It might perhaps even need to be salted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ref#1 (Boston Common): Only one brief passing mention.
 * ref#2 (Interfaith Family): Only one brief passing mention.
 * ref#3 (Newsday): Does not even mention him explicitly at all.
 * ref#4 (New York Post): An unreliable tabloid. Even if it was reliable, quotes/comments from himself, friends, and family are not third-party sources, which is what this link mainly consists of (assuming the quotes weren't just made up)
 * ref#5 (CNN): Something he wrote himself. In other words, primary source. Primary sources do not add to notability.
 * ref#6 (Today): A list of random facts about him. Trivial coverage.
 * ref#7 (New York Times): Self-written piece. Primary source.
 * ref#8 (Irish Central): Interview of him. Primary source.
 * ref#9 (PBS): Only one brief passing mention.
 * ref#10 (JFK Library): Too closely affiliated with his family, therefore not third-party.
 * Salt? He's JFK's only grandson and he "aspires to pursue a career in politics" so I don't think you want to salt it. Keep. The article is essentially similar to our many articles on Prince Flupperty of Batten-Bergen-Batten and so forth. We don't have actual princes over here but this guy's near enough. The Post may be unreliable but it's certainly notable (they sell it all the place here, and I live in Boston) and that's the operative characteristic we're looking for in determining notability rather than if certain facts are correct. And it's a substantial article. So is the one by Today -- yeah it's trivial (what do you want, he's a teenager) but it's substantial, and Today is a big deal. It's not local-access cable or something. The other ref's fill it out and the guy's notable. Maybe he shouldn't be but welcome to America. 4th nom? Give it up. Herostratus (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid for deletion discussions, and so is WP:WAX. "Aspires to pursue"..... we don't really know for sure that he'll end up doing so. Seems like a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Being JFK's only grandson also is trivial and an argument to avoid per WP:INHERIT. Whether NY Post is reliable or not, that article isn't a third-party source as it consists mainly of quotes/comments supposedly from Jack himself, family, and friends. Interviews and closely affiliated subjects talking about a person doesn't count as notable coverage. Sales of a source aren't what matters, reliability of source is and verifiability are higher priorities. Today is most certainly reliable, but it doesn't provide very significant detail on him. What we would need is multiple reliable THIRD-PARTY sources providing significant non-trivial coverage for him to be notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be that WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid for deletion discussions per WP:NOTAGAIN However, it's not an argument to avoid per common sense. There's just no percentage in banging your head against the wall. The ""Aspires to pursue..." is just an argument against salting. Since under the circumstances it's reasonably likely that he'll at the very least be a major party candidate for Congress someday, it seems silly to make is such that we can never have an article about him without jumping through special hoops. As to the Post, the article has a byline -- one Jerry Oppenheimer -- and he wrote it an the Post editors approved its publication. If Oppenheimer chose to make his coverage mostly just raw quotes from the subject (doesn't look like that to me, but whatever), maybe he's busy or lazy or that's just how he rolls. It' still a significantly developed article (not just a quick mention or whatever) with a report's byline in a notable publication. Herostratus (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to have to say it, but WP:NOTAGAIN is still an argument to avoid for deletion discussions even if it doesn't look like common sense. Keep in mind, I also suggested a redirect to the Kennedy family page. Notability of publications is not what WP:GNG is concerned about. It requires multiple reliable THIRD-PARTY sources giving the subject significant independent coverage. Family and friends are not third-party, and niether are comments from Jack himself. Will he ever go through with political ambitions and run for congress or anything? Perhaps, but it is WP:TOOSOON to know such things. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The essays on Wikipedia are not rules or guidelines. They are largely contradictory and not part of a coherent system. One can cite essays all day long to support any position one wants. If you cite an essay, at least explain why you are doing so, not just blindly citing something as if it was an unbending truth, appealing to its authority. They are just opinions, and generalized ones, not always applicable, have no power as a rule or guideline, nor do they have consensus. -- Green  C  05:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:ONLYESSAY and WP:ONLYGUIDELINE are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Regardless of political ambitions, he's a certified celebrity: People magazine (last week), Huff Post (last February) The Daily Mail (last November). Pburka (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources. Especially not Daily Mail, which has been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you claiming that an article dedicated to the subject in People is not an indication of notability? Pburka (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It most certainly doesn't indicate notability because of WP:NOTNEWS and also since People is a gossip magazine with frequent bias and/or false reports. Questionable reliability at best. Even if it was reliable, Lauren Bush doesn't really count as third-party since she (in a way) worked with him. Neither is Kennedy Library foundation as it's too closely affiliated with his family. That Huffington Post link is also not third-party since it revolves around commentary from himself and his friends/classmates. Plus, it revolves around gossip (WP:NOTNEWS again comes into play here). I also see you've removed the New York Times piece Jack wrote himself. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood WP:INDEPENDENT. Lauren Bush didn't write the People article, and his friends didn't write the Huff Post article. Pburka (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, his friends didn't write the piece, but the article relies on quote from his friends. She didn't write it, but quote from someone working with the person doesn't exactly count as third-party. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the other AfD and DRV discussions, in particular the last one which went on for about 2 months and involved dozens of editors. Nothing has changed in the intervening 7 weeks. --  Green  C  05:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not much has changed, but not for the reasons you seem to have in mind. He actually does NOT meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in any reliable third-party sources. What you've overlooked is how the only sources that give him significant coverage are unreliable and/or not third-party. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The last AFD ended on 16 March 2014.  The nominator argued to delete there, didn't get his way, so decided to start up the same AFD again.  That's gaming the system.  Reliable sources give him significant coverage.  Someone's personal opinion about those sources is not relevant here, since Wikipedia considers them reliable sources.   D r e a m Focus  09:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Notable individual, plenty of sources dedicated to him, meets WP:GNG without problems.-- cyclopia speak! 12:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But there are no reliable third-party sources that give him significant coverage. In other words, commentary from friends, classmates, himself, and family affiliations do NOT count as notable coverage. This keeps getting overlooked in regards to WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These ARE third party sources. Your definition of independent source is inconsistent with the generally accepted definition. When a journalist for People magazine reports on Mr. Schlossberg, she is an independent third party. That she may choose to selectively report quotes from people associated with Mr. Schlossberg doesn't detract from that. (If she were to quote them fully, with no editorial role, it would not be independent, but that is not the case here.) Additionally, these are reliable sources. While People may not be a reliable source for scientific topics or international affairs, it should be considered a reliable source within the scope of celebrity and popular culture. Pburka (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * People is a questionable source at best for such an area as they're a gossip magazine. "Reliable gossip magazine" is an oxymoron. When talking about celebs, they are often biased and/or fabricated. Even for the reports they give that aren't false (i.e. reporting that a celeb couple has ended their relationship), they often favor one celeb over the other within their writings. Huffington Post is known for often being biased and/or fraudulent in things like politics, science, medicine, and celebs. Daily Mail has been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN for continuous fraudulence. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Reliable gossip magazine" is not an oxymoron. Some gossip magazines just make up stuff wholesale, but People is reasonably respectable, is (or was) an arm of Time-Warner, and employs fact-checkers. Since the doings of people like Mr Schlossberg is exactly the sort of thing they focus on, they're probably fairly reliable in that narrow area. I would not consider People a reliable source for the estimated mass of the Andromeda Galaxy or whether the Central African Republic is in a de facto civil war. At the same time, I wouldn't consider Astronomy or Foreign Affairs a reliable source for whether people are buzzing about Jennifer Warner and Robert Pattinson being seen holding hands, because that's not their area of expertise. Herostratus (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as affiliations with Time Inc or Time Warner go, I think you've confused publishers with writers. Time Inc/Warner does the publishing for pieces, not the writing. The writers are what reliability is concerned with. Time magazine itself for example has very different writers than People does, and is unquestionably more reliable than People whether one counts People as a reliable source or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah but publisher means something. It wouldn't make business sense for Time-Warner to publish an egriously unreliable magazine because its reputation would not help their effort to sell copies of Time magazine. Look, People has fact-checkers. It doesn't make business sense for them to not to try to be reasonably accurate. If People reports "Leonardo DeCaprio was seen escorting Megan Fox to the Angry Young Popes concert" then you may be reasonably assured that 1) the reporter saw them together or 2) was told this by someone the reporter (who has a career and reputation to uphold) considers reliable, and 3) a fact-checker called DeCaprio and/or Fox's publicists and probably got a confirmation or at least not a denial, and 3) an editor, also with a career and reputation to uphold, decided she was confident enough in all that to publish it. Of course they make mistakes, every publication makes mistakes. There was a thing a few months ago where they made a stupid mistake -- published a photo of a person that was actually a different person -- and it was in the news and they were embarassed and probably the person responsible got fired. They weren't like "What difference does it make?" because it doesn't fit their business model to not care if the stuff they publish is true or not. Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps People isn't "egregiously unreliable", but it still often has biased writers. Certainly more reliable than Star magazine, InTouch, OK! magazine, or Perez Hilton, I will give you that. However, they often have poor support for claims. A recurring example I've seen in sources such as that (and the ones I previously indicated were unreliable) is where they have a quote with things like "sources say" or "according to a source" and don't give the name of such "sources". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Something he wrote himself is not a primary source if CNN published it, nor is something a primary source simply because it's an interview. The People and Huffington Post stories are indeed reliable. Nightscream (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit I'd be surprised if something he wrote himself is not considered primary source. The writer is more of the concern than publisher. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well no. What matters is that some third party has made the editorial choice. Interviews are not primary sources, at least not overall; specific quotes from an interview would be primary, but that is another matter. -- cyclopia speak! 16:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't exactly say interviews are third-party sources, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep the article was (quite rightly) deleted back in 2011, but it's pretty clear notability & level of media coverage has changed since then. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been more coverage since 2011, but we have to ask the following about whether a source helps fulfill GNG:
 * Is the source reliable?
 * Is it third-party (not relying on commentary from himself or those affiliated with him such as friends, classmates, teachers, or family)?
 * Does it contain non-trivial coverage?
 * So far, all the sources fail at least one of those criteria. The closest source available to meet GNG is the Today reference. While it might look like it contains significant coverage, it simply is a list of random facts and trivia about him. Medium-level coverage at best. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your second criteria is absolutely non standard (relying on commentary from himself or those affiliated with him is perfectly acceptable in a third party source). Also "a list of random facts and trivia" is still comprehensive third party coverage. -- cyclopia speak! 19:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should've phrased it differently. The point I was trying to make is that self-discussion/self-promotion doesn't count as notable coverage, and neither do pieces he writes regardless of depth as he is not a third-party source. Pieces written on him by those closely affiliated with him also do not count as notable, as third-party sources exclude family, friends, teachers, employers, classmates, enemies, and others affiliated with subject of article. Primary sources aren't necessarily bad/unreliable, but Wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources not closely affiliated with subject to fulfill notability criteria. There is not enough reliable secondary coverage on him (that isn't from subjects affiliated with him) to meet notability criteria. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per XXSNUGGUMSXX p  b  p  23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep gave my reasons at previous nominations. This is 4th, how much more is needed for some people to stop with this nominations. Einstein had a definition for insanity.--SadarMoritz (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As previously mentioned, WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From NOTAGAIN: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged" -- Green  C  23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "simply referring" to it would be something like "See WP:NOTAGAIN". The reason I bring up WP:NOTAGAIN is how it states that the number of nominations is not something to address in an AfD. It also reads: "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion". One thing not addressed his how most mentions of him are trivial. Arguments brought up here that weren't brought up before include how many of the sources are closely affiliated with subject (i.e. self-written pieces, interviews, family organizations) and therefore not third-party. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The person said they gave their reasons at the previous nominator. You can go there and read if you wanted to.  Should be obvious they believe the significant coverage in reliable sources means the person passes the general notability guidelines, since that's what everyone said then, and are saying now.  Kindly stop beating a dead horse and drop the stick already.   D r e a m Focus  01:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Schlossberg was in the news again today, this time in the New York Daily News. Reuters and other sources also covered the story, but the coverage in the Daily News focuses specifically on John Schlossberg. Pburka (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as reliability goes, I'm not too sure about this one. Are there any more reliable sources on the event? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The New York Daily News is generally a reliable source. It's a newspaper with wide circulation and editorial oversight. It's widely cited on Wikipedia, such as in the Bill de Blasio article. As I said, other sources (such a Reuters and Stars and Stripes) also covered the event. In CNN's coverage, John's presence is called "noteworthy" and he is described as "the future face of the Democratic Party in the United States." Pburka (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, this pretty much seals the deal. He was notable, he is now even more notable. -- cyclopia speak! 14:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; I had !voted delete on one of the prior ones because I was skeptical about whether WP:GNG realistically applied, especially given that meeting WP:BIO or meeting notability in the realm of politicians wasn't evident, and most of the sources, like the nom mentions, had issues issues with whether the subject's actually the subject of the coverage versus just incidental to wider story / WP:INHERITing. The NYDN article mentioned above, as well as this one (recent, clearly-the-subject-of-the-coverage) helps counter those concerns, as celebrity-style coverage, which seems to be increasingly dominant, would also place him in WP:ENT. It's still not clear'n'obvious, but so long as the article's actually improved with the newer sources and whatnot, it would seem much more reasonably so to me. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because the repeated AfD nominations show no indication what-so-ever that an AfD will ever succeed. This was totally obvious without this fourth nomination. Future nominators should consider the waste of time of a 5th, 6th, ... nomination. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the article has been deleted three times. While I think the article should be kept, I don't think that this is a good argument in favour of keeping. Pburka (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the number of deletions it has had/AfD's it went through is not a convincing argument to keep an article per WP:NOTAGAIN. As for other arguments to avoid, one thing I previously hadn't brought up is how WP:INTHENEWS is also an argument to avoid. 20:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:INTHENEWS is not relevant. Schlossberg isn't just in the news this week: he's in the news every few months, each time for different events. Pburka (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that just because someone has stories on them in the news doesn't automatically make them notable. As for WP:EVENT, I could understand how one might deem him notable (be it praise or controversy) if it was being in the news weekly or perhaps even monthly. Every few months? Less likely. WP:NOTNEWS states even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Keep in mind, if not delete I'm fully open to this being redirected to Kennedy family (which most—but definitely not all—of his coverage pertains to). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that only the first AfD resulted in deletion. The second one was overturned in Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3 due to most reviewers believing the article was WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * True, though this time I've given an analysis on how it actually does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. He also fails all nine of the criteria listed at WP:ACADEMIC for his education and all four of the criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR for his writings.XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no upper limit on AfD nominations, mainly because WP:CONSENSUS can and does change over time on policies and guidelines (so do articles), and any AfD that closes "no consensus" is fair game for a renomination. We have things like the snowball clause more for stuff that's truly obvious (like an immediate renomination after a keep result or a string of keep results). -- slakr \ talk / 01:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Slakr. This also is certainly not a case of WP:SNOW. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly what? It is clear that this will be a keep or no consensus. Why are we wasting time on this?  Far too little time has passed for claims that consensus can change to even begin to apply. Also it is not the role of the nominator to argue each and every single point raised by those "voting".  The usual role of the nominator is to stand back, see what happens and interject only if questioned or if the nomination reasons are misunderstood. Those voting keep fully understand the reasoning of the nominator. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yesterday, People published another article about John Schlossberg. They covered his visit to Japan (the same event the Daily News and Reuters covered above). Pburka (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of those three sources, Reuters is definitely the most reliable. Keep in mind though that the raw number of sources mentioning a subject is not by itself an indicator of notability per WP:MASK and WP:HITS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...none of which really apply here. Really, I cannot fathom why you are so hell bent on wanting to delete this article but oh well, each one has their pet peeves. But the point is that the number of reliable news sources is an indicator of notability. In theory one meets WP:GNG with two RS talking about a subject, without even the need of having the subject being the main topic of the article. Here we are way beyond that. Consensus in the discussion is clear so far. It basically snowing now. Perhaps we can bury the carcass with dignity? -- cyclopia speak!  18:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hell bent" is a stretch. While there are multiple reliable sources mentioning him, many of them only do do briefly and/or aren't third-party. WP:SNOW doesn't quite apply here since "keep" arguments have included WP:WAX and WP:NOTAGAIN, which are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. What is also being overlooked is how he fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR are not relevant (he also fails WP:ATHLETE). He passes WP:GNG which is the basic test for notability. It also doesn't matter than some of the sources aren't independent or, or their coverage significant. As Cyclopia correctly points out, all that matters is that there is significant coverage in some reliable, independent sources. Pburka (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I brought up WP:AUTHOR because of some previously asserting he was notable as a writer (which actually isn't what he is noted for), and WP:ACADEMIC to indicate that being a Yale student and being involved in school activities are not enough to be notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per past discussions on this very topic, and as a celebrity; being famous for being famous can make one notable. I think xxsnuggumsxx is badly misreading WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I haven't misread it. The issue is that although there are reliable sources discussing him, most only do so briefly and/or are not third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2014 (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.