Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Geo, 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:ATA (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)