Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 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 delete. No notability has been established except in articles about him being the grandson of JFK, and page view stats/"what links here" are not policy backed arguments for keeping an article. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot predict that his political career will actually be notable, or that his stated intentions of doing so will actually come to fruition. Therefore, at this time there is still not enough direct notability established to warrant an individual article on Schlossberg. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Schlossberg[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Schlossberg has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, only Kennedy-related celebrity talk, notability is not inherited. Hekerui (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only surviving male descendant of John F Kennedy, who has announced intention to pursue a career in politics, is a public and notable individual. Information in the article is often sought ought, page view stats shows some days have nearly 2500 views. A significant number of What links here. Deleting would do more harm than good. WP:Inherited is an essay that provides plenty of nuance to deal with individual cases without being blinded by a rule. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The only surviving male descendant of John F Kennedy" - no notability reason, "announced intention to pursue a career in politics" - no actual office held, "public and notable individual" - assertion, "often sought ought" - like Malia Obama, "What links here" - links come from a template about the Kennedy family; in all, the coverage given is not about Schlossberg but how he fits in with his family. We have the article Kennedy family for that. Hekerui (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NY Post, DailyMail, IrishCentral - lengthy profiles, coverage does exist about Schlossberg. "Significant" coverage, when you take into account the facts being reported. The contention that the "only surviving male descendant of John F Kennedy who intends to pursue a career in politics" is non-notable is difficult to fathom. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His name is not in the titles of these articles, but JFK is - this is why he's covered at all. Aside from family, what notable things has Schlossberg done since 2011? I don't see it. Hekerui (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The fact that Schlossberg is the only surviving male descendant of John F Kennedy, and has announced his intention to pursue a career in politics, does not indicate notability. I could look into my crystal ball and say it means he will be notable, but that doesn't count. However, articles in major newspapers are another matter. 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.--Larry (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noability is not inherited, and despite what some of the Kennedys think, America is not a monarchy, and we do not have people who inherit political positions. Until Schlossberg does something notable we should not have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INHERIT is meant to prevent us Wikipedians from arguing a person is notable because they are related to someone famous. It's an essay in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's about arguments to avoid eg. "I, Green Cardamom, believe this person is notable because he is a Kennedy". INHERIT is not meant to trump WP:GNG or to second guess or judge the press. Do you see the difference? INHERIT does not apply to the NY Post. The NY Post is not arguing in this AfD. The purpose of WP:GNG is to show evidence of coverage regardless of what that coverage is about, we don't bias against sources because, for example, we think someone shouldn't be treated like a monarch. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with Johnpacklambert. Joe R (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is a college student who has been in the public eye only to a limited extent. As a Kennedy descendant, he may well wind up getting a lot more publicity in his lifetime and thus achieve a greater claim to notability later. But so far, he hasn't really done that yet. If this person truly becomes notable, we will likely be able to find a lot more reliable sources covering him than there are now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2013 (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.