Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Slakr, 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:SYNTH (Wikipedia:Notability)