Deletion of John Schlossberg (5th nomination)

Comment: many of the !voters here confuse "notability" with "importance". It's not necessary that somebody do something notable,  says that somebody must be the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Note that the sources are not required to be reliable, they are required to be independent (which makes the haggling about the NY Post moot). If there is much speculation about the subject in the press, which is deemed interesting to their readers, then the subject attains notability without actually doing something. I'll cite again Prince George of Cambridge who is much talked about in the press and thus passes GNG without having said a word yet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Sorry for the wall of text, but...I read every AfD before I nominated again.  Plenty of time has been given to find sources for this article, and yet nothing has appeared to meet notability.  As a matter of fact, there is nothing new or significant in any of his coverage - even the People article consists of "5 Things To Know about Jack Schlossberg," one of which is that he has "Kennedy hair."  Nevertheless, the same policy-based arguments came up to delete, and now we've even got "likely future notability" (?) as a keep statement now.  No matter how many times this is kept, there's nothing there to improve the article, because that is absolutely typical for an 18-year-old who then goes to college for four years.  We know college students are not generally notable - can anyone even name me anyone from their college paper?  Every source I located and read indicates that Schlossberg's entire notability at this time is based on the fact that he is a Kennedy, and particularly JFK's grandson.  Nine of the eleven sources mention JFK or the Kennedy family directly in the headline.  Of the other two, one is ''People'' (already mentioned as a puff piece) and one is ''Today''.  His own written articles are either about presenting the (Kennedy-presented) "Profiles in Courage" awards, or writing about "the legacy of his grandfather." That's the extent of thr three articles he has written, and one is a copy of another.  Both People and USA Today, and even NECN, emphasize that he is a Kennedy - that's what makes him coverage-worthy to them, and  might apply here.  He simply has done nothing to meet GNG; we are forgetting that there is no "significant third-party coverage" - it extends to "EMT trainee at Yale, does Kennedy family stuff, grandson of JFK."  That's ''literally'' all we know about him after three or four years of trying to do an article.  So we have a choice - delete due to no notability, or admit that, contrary to policy, simply "because he's a Kennedy, he's notable."  That's what we're left with here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: He has also written opinion pieces for http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/opinion/jfks-legacy-as-seen-by-his-grandson.html?_r=0 the New York Times, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/23/kennedy-politics-bush-congress-clinton-column/8047957/ USAToday and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-schlossberg/profiles-in-courage-in-our-time_b_5213634.html the Huffington Post.  is an essay, not policy, and states ''This is why notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent: inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence'' which is not true in this case as notability can be verified by third-party sources. These sources should not be dismissed because of the activity Kennedy was involved in as ''notability is a property of a subject'' and it doesn't matter if editors consider the activities covered by those sources not to be notable in themselves. Also, , which is a guideline, states ''For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:FAILN)

Comment: As I mentioned in previous AFDS for this and the deletion review, he gets significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passes  just fine.  The article currently references plenty of sources in it.  The fact that they briefly mention his famous grandfather is irrelevant.  That isn't the only reason he is getting coverage.  People magazine http://www.people.com/article/jack-schlossberg-jfk-grandson-five-things, and Today http://www.today.com/news/jfks-grandson-takes-center-stage-9-things-we-know-about-2D11635076 both have articles that list information known about him, seeing him as notable enough to do that.  The New York Post gives a lengthy article about him. http://nypost.com/2013/02/27/jfks-heir-apparent/ Just look through the sources references in the article already
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Liz and DreamFocus, the borders are crossed on  when the coverage focuses on the PERSON instead of just having articles ON someone with a "Foo's brother Foo exists too and he has nice hair"! Seriously people can be the heavy focus of coverage just by having relations with highly notable people, his sister's don't get this kind of coverage so they fail , sick of this new trend of removing people that are in real life encyclopedias just because they are the sister or daughter of someone more notable then them. Atleast this one went to AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIOFAMILY||WP:BIOFAMILY)