Deletion of John Schlossberg (3rd nomination)

Comment: nbsp; Note that I commented twice at the most recent DRV.&nbsp; IMO, there is no argument here that satisfies eletion policy without invoking WP:IAR.&nbsp; The argument to WP:NOTINHERITED is a contrary interpretation of rguments to avoid in deletion discussions.&nbsp; The related implied argument that WP:NOTINHERITED is an emerging tenet of WP:NOT does not explain John Quincy Adams.&nbsp; IMO, the policy path to consensus here is to conclude that the topic passes WP:GNG but is not "worthy of notice" as is required by WP:N.&nbsp; The remedy for such is a merge, which does not need AfD.&nbsp; In part I think that editors are not unreasonably reacting to the misuse of the encyclopedia in the "Career" section, but removing trivia and speculation is handled by diting policy.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D||WP:A||WP:E)

Comment: per the core notability guideline , multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. The  essay is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It would apply if a Keep voter was arguing based on who a person is. But no one is claiming notability based on who he is. Invoking inherit in the nomination is a strawman. Of course any source is going to mention his more famous relatives, it can't be avoided, but these sources are all mainly about John Schlossberg. The last Delete was overturned on these grounds.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INHERIT)

Comment: After reading the opinions above I feel I need to remind participants of their obligation to follow the recommendations of .  The ''"delete"'' opinions seem to be a combination of lapses from , that fail to recognize that RS have covered Schlossberg in detail -- and classic lapses from the advice of  from participants whose comments boil down to ''they don't think Schlossberg '''''should''''' be notable'', who have blithely ignored that widespread coverage of him in RS have made him notable whether they like it or not.  Yes, we have the advice of , in the  essay, and 95+ percent of the relatives of notable people do turn out to be nobodies, who if they are mentioned in the press, have only a truly passing mention, of their relationship with the more famous relative, and say nothing about them.  However, I suggest a fair reading of the press reporting on Schlossberg show he is one of the exceptions, one of the less than 5 percent of relatives of notable people who have had their own notability established
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:ATA)

Comment: clearly notable for his family connection, and meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: would any of the coverage of Schlossberg have occurred if he weren't related to the Kennedys?  If not (and I don't see that anyone is seriously arguing this), then  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: mdash; If I overly simplify the article, I see, in order:  1. he writes stuff (but not notable stuff); 2. he's the grandson of someone famous; 3. he was born, had some parents, those parents had famous parents, had a childhood, etc; 4. raised funds in 8th grade (but not famously/only because of a source covering #2); 5. has a blog and does some news reporting (but not famously); 6. wants to be a politician in the future (but hasn't even run for anything); 7. said something at a dinner with politicians (because of #2, #3, and #6); 8. is on an award committee (but not a famous one, and only because of #2). If you apply specific notability to each one, they seem to mostly fail the corresponding guidelines (e.g., , , ). So, if the claim that he meets the GNG is because of things that wouldn't make someone independently notable on their own, it feels a bit like |original research to glue non-notable things together to advance the assertion that, "He's notable in ''our'' opinion because he's done ''n'' non-notable things, which equals 1 big notable thing: him!" I think that's part of the problem with inherited notability; if you come from a famous family, you can get press just by posting a scandalous picture on Twitter, getting arrested for a DUI, or pooping in a park (and/or all of the above, if you're crazy like that :P)&mdash;gluing the 3 non-notable events together (even with news article sources), doesn't seem like it should make you notable (and wouldn't if a no-name did it), but I guess that's really just a matter of opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: since I've noticed this fact is ignored, please remember that John is also a writer, who (taken from the article) "writes for the Yale Daily News, Yale Herald,7 and posts opinion pages for the New York Times.8". In addition, the existences of all the sources make him sufficiently notable per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and merge some basic info, such as his existence, to a notable family member's article - IMO in its present state, this article is an insult to all encyclopaedic writing.  The sixth line of text of otability states, ''"This (Notability) is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."'' Wait until he's actually accomplished something for him to have a standalone
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as the subject passes . The article's subject received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; some of these are documented in the article. The General Notability Guideline trumps the other subject-related guidelines and essays mentioned in the opposing comments and !votes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)