- 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 no consensus. With WP:NPASR. While there are indeed problems with SPA accounts drawn to this discussion due to the way the subject was treated by Trump, there are some claims that he might indeed be notable regardless of this incident. As such, this discussion might be best postponed for a few weeks until Trump has found someone else to shout down and the notability can be assessed properly. Even discounting the SPAs and other non-policy based arguments there is - at this time - no clear consensus to delete. So Why 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Jake Turx
- Jake Turx ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:1E. Subject came to media prominence last week after being shouted down by Donald Trump at the president's first press conference. This incident and follow-up interviews with Turx were widely covered by the top news media. Other than that, subject has no notability. The assertion that he is the first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps is unsourced. Most of this page is cobbled together from the subject's own LinkedIn and Facebook pages, YouTube uploads, and the local Lakewood Scoop. Every other day a new policy issue is added to the "multiple issues" template. Recommend delete until subject actually acquires significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Yoninah ( talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Favonian ( talk) 21:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The subject has already acquired significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources that are unarguably about him. Amid the dozens of sources in the article are a few that may be of lower quality, though the the nominator has failed to demonstrate that *ALL* of the sources fail to meet that standard. Issues with articles are great reasons to edit and discuss, but are rather poor arguments for deletion. The claim of notability as the first Hasidic Jew to become a member of the White House press corps is exceedingly strong and one that has received worldwide coverage. Tthe ample systemic bias faced by individuals in the Hasidic community needs to be considered and addressed. Alansohn ( talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ Alansohn:, I added the information about him asking the question at Trump's first press conference to Ami (magazine)#Coverage, where he is listed as the magazine's political correspondent. That's where that WP:1E event belongs. If you take away from this page all the sources that cite that press conference, you are left with nothing. No sources say he is the first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps. Yoninah ( talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I agree to the above I ask this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loz Gemachet ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Loz Gemachet ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete the 1 event that makes him famous can be covered (and already is) in the AMI magazine article. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Turx's writings are known far and wide; and has met the criteria of "notability" long before the episode last week gained him national and international recognition.
He is more then just "worthy of notice"; he is a writer of "note" who many readers turn to as their first read in Ami. He and his writings are "remarkable", "significant", extremely "interesting", and quite "unusual a writer" to say the least; and surely deserves the attention to be recorded. I cannot imagine what else a writer needs to be, to have an entry in Wikipedia. This page will get thousands of hits this year, of people curious to read who their favorite writer is. What's the big deal, when you have hundreds of entries like his and many of them much less significant; so why not have his deserved page too? Is it that an uphill battle these days to get anyone entered? Wikipedia is "the" depository of knowledge to which everyone turns, and such a significant entry definitely belongs there. Mountain top habitat ( talk) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
-
- Fits the criteria of "Creative professional", especially #2: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. He is unique in his style and technique. Mountain top habitat ( talk) 00:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Jake Turx has been a prominent journalist that has followed and interviewed many of the candidates throughout the entire 2016 campaign. He's worked his way up to becoming a White House Correspondent with his articles reaching a widespread audience as has he been any many shows even before his press conference inside. I strongly believe that his Wikipedia page should remain open though I'd suggest some editing to it as the deletion of the ill-written "media apprearances" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1derthere ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I do not like it and most of the content on this page is censored on my screen. However, from what I can see there are an abundance of references and sources for this page which show a broad range of coverage. Furthermore, it does make a claim of significance (several) some of which are substantiated with sources. Wiki-Coffee Talk 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a WP:1E article. The coverage everyone talks about is not about the individual, but rather about the incident. The other coverage is You-Tube coverage and self-posted articles. In-depth, significant coverage is lacking. Should this be changed to an article about the incident rather than the individual? reddogsix ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- With this said: It needs some serious tidying up to conform with WP:MOS and WP:BLP. To be honest after having looked at the article in more detail it seems disorganized and not in line with the standardized layouts of biographies on Wikipedia. While right now I am on a very weak keep I would look towards another AfD nomination in the future if the article remains in this state for some time., Wiki-Coffee Talk 00:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The fact is that he is the first Hasidic member of White House press corps. At least the part that he is “Orthodox” must be significant enough, for almost every report about the “Trump incident” felt the importance of mentioning it. Therefore, there must be something novel about it.
- He has just gotten this position, so it’s understandable that there are only a limited amount of coverage about him personally. However, the amount of coverage the “Trump incident” has garnered - For example, it was mentioned at least six times just in the NY Times alone [1] - shows the notability of the person.
- It’s my believe that if we establish that the fact of being “the first Hasidic member of White House press corps” is notable enough, as long as no one disputes it, the page should not be deleted.
- The fact that numerus editors, familiar with the publication and the individual, pointed out, on the talk page, his importance in the community, should also play a role in making the person “notable”.
Bloger (
talk) 00:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Let's be clear, the notability the subject needs to meet is Wikipedia based notability. It differs greatly from "real-world" notability. Again, the coverage we are all seeing is about the incident, not the individual. As for "importance in the community," please demonstrate how being important in the community is a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix ( talk) 00:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Just realized this in one of the NYT articles: “He is a singular presence in the briefing room: a young Hasidic Jew with side curls tucked behind his ears…” [2].
- So I guess the NYT “does” think this person is “notable”. Bloger ( talk) 00:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Show us where Wikipedia states being "first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps" denotes Wikipedia based notability. There is nothing in Wikipedia that states so. Simply put
notability is derived from from
WP:GNG.
reddogsix (
talk) 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - So do you need those exact words?.... Common sense must be applied. If he were the “first Jew”, would you agree its “notable”? Would you need someone to “show those words” to you?
Bloger (
talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Once again, simply put
notability is a result of
WP:GNG. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming the action drives notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
reddogsix (
talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - So, is him being “the first” something that needs to be “made” notable?
- Like, the fact that this is a step farther into the “acceptance of Jews” and one step farther away from how things used to be just 60-70 years ago - when Jews were prosecuted - isn’t that like “notable”? Do we need “a source” - let alone a “secondary source” - that “equality for all” is “notable”?
- Would the “first African American correspondent” not be “notable” according to your logic? Would we need a “source” or “secondary source” to establish its notability? Bloger ( talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Once again, simply put
notability is a result of
WP:GNG. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming the action drives notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
reddogsix (
talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - So do you need those exact words?.... Common sense must be applied. If he were the “first Jew”, would you agree its “notable”? Would you need someone to “show those words” to you?
Bloger (
talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Show us where Wikipedia states being "first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps" denotes Wikipedia based notability. There is nothing in Wikipedia that states so. Simply put
notability is derived from from
WP:GNG.
reddogsix (
talk) 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Rather than following you down the rabbit hole you seem to want to travel, I say once again, simply put notability is a result of WP:GNG. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming the action drives notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. My best to you. reddogsix ( talk) 04:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - He was treated shabbily by Trump. If that's all it took, there'd be a lot more notable people in the world. Beyond this one incident, there isn't much more of note. Glendoremus ( talk) 07:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Did many other incidents garner such coverage? Did those people get intervened on “Anderson Cooper”, “Anderson Cooper”, Sky News, NPR Etc. Etc.?
- Did you take into account the fact of him being the first Hasidic member of White House press corps?
- Did you take into account his importance to his community?
Bloger (
talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Again, it was the incident that garnered the coverage, not the individual. reddogsix ( talk) 19:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - It was the individual too.
- As is evident by the fact that every report about the incident made a point of mentioning his religious orientation. It wasn’t even that he is Jewish itself – which would make sense since it was a question about Anti-Semitism - but that was “an orthodox Jew”. And that’s clearly because of the novelty of an orthodox Jewish reporter in the white house. Bloger ( talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not news and we do not cover minor news incidents that have one day of coverage and then vanish. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - It happens to be that this one news story brought this person to the forefront, but the fact that he’s the “first Hasidic member of White House press corps” is notable regardless of this one incident.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - After considering the arguments above, It’s my opinion that the page should not be deleted. I think the reporter is notable enough, given his being the first Hasidic reporter in the White House.
- Also being an important person in a community should add notability. This story may have been what put the spotlight on him nationally and even internationally, but he’s a well-known and important member of the ultra-orthodox press for a couple of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisroel Tech ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Turx is currently very famous in the Orthodox community, for being their voice in the White House. Yes, this incident raised his profile, but made him now notable beyond this episode, and made him the leading voice within Orthodox Jewish media, when it comes to WH politics. He also became the face of the debate regarding the Trump administration's response to antisemitism, and his Tweet about it was retweeted 1,200 times and liked over 3,300 times [3]. I think that a comparison with Joe the Plumber is in place. Unlike Joe, whose notability came by a chance encounter with President Candidate McCain made him famous, Turx is a reporter, and his question and President Trump's outburst thrust him into the limelight. The notable episode and his notability are intertwined, in addition to his articles being read by tens of thousands, and his page should be kept. OrthodoxActivist ( talk) 22:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — OrthodoxActivist ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Joe the Plumber did not qualify for Wikipedia as a one-time event. He appeared several times on the campaign trail and also ran for office himself. Jake Turx has not reached that level of significant, ongoing, national coverage by any means. Yoninah ( talk) 22:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Additionally, retweeting and likes are an indication of popularity - in this case not a big indication of popularity. Being read by "tens of thousands" - although I would ask how you know this - is also an indication of popularity. Popularity in itself is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix ( talk) 23:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ Reddogsix: Ami has a circulation of about 25,000. [4] As cited in the article, Turx is the first reporter for Ami magazine to become a member of the White House press corps. Those of us who've been reading Ami for years (myself included) are pretty excited over that fact. But it doesn't make him notable by Wikipedia standards. Yoninah ( talk) 23:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- ^ https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22Jake+Turx%22/
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/trump-press-conference-jake-turx.html
- ^ https://twitter.com/JakeTurx/status/833729278848139265
- ^ Goldman, Ari L. (30 September 2015). "For ultra-Orthodox newspapers, women and the Web present growing challenges". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
- Comment - Given that some editors are getting so “bent out of shape” to delete this page. Even after many people have given their opinion for it to stay, pointing out the notability of the individual. I would like to show for compresence, a few people just out of the one Print/Internet section of the White House press corps page [1] - the very same section where this individual is mentioned - that have separate pages, with much less notability, much less worldwide coverage, and much less information about the individuals themselves Etc. Etc.
- Christoph von Marschall, Myles Miller, Susan Page, Tara Palmeri, Shannon Pettypiece, Sean Quinn (writer), Glenn Thrush, Lucian Wintrich, Yasmeen Sami Alamiri.
- So either at least some of those pages should be nominated for deletion - on the same basis as the deletion nomination of this page - or this page souled be left alone.
Bloger (
talk) 00:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Yoninah ( talk) 00:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bias? Please be specific as to where there is bias or anyone has gotten "bent out of shape" in any of these discussions, otherwise I suggest you WP:AGF. reddogsix ( talk) 00:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- No need to be specific, just compere other pages with similar or much less notability, meanwhile you have no problem with those pages. Many of the pages would have some of the same issues, yet common sense is used. Bloger ( talk) 01:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- You should realize that you are the only individual coming back repeatedly to try to refute each and every “Keep” argument.
- Even User:Yoninah - who initiated the delete conversation - only has a problem that the notability of him being the first Hasidic member of White House press corps is not sourced.
- That’s an argument that I can understand. And although It’s my opinion that as long as no one denies that fact, because he was just given that job, it should be taken into account and more time should be given for a proper “bio” article about him to be written.
- However, “I get” that argument.
- You On the other hand, don’t even want to agree that as “a first” it’s notable. Instead of addressing the argument when put to you, you just did a “copy/paste” and added a metaphor of a rabbit hole. Bloger ( talk) 01:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- </sigh>The real sadness is you have accused me of bias without any reason to. My failure to comment on other's notability is based solely on the fact I have not and cannot comment on every page out there - nor would I want to. To comment on pages without reviewing each would be unfair to those pages. Let me try to explain this as simply as possible. Being the first of anything is not what drives Wikipedia notability, what drives Wikipedia notability is meeting certain referencing criteria. If you can not understand simple statement, that I cannot help you. reddogsix ( talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- And I have pointed out again and again that the persistence in almost every article about this incident that the individual is an “orthodox Jew” - in addition to the quote from the NYT above - should be enough for notability. As it clearly points to the “novelty” of the situation in the eyes of all those reporters. And since in at least some cases – as in “the first African American” for example – common sense has to be applied, the same should be done here.
- BTW, it seems that you are taking the “bias” argument personnel and in the wrong way. So to clarify, I specifically added “seems to be” as I can’t really know if there is a bias or not. Secondly, I didn’t mean a bias in the “bad” sense of the word - like racial or otherwise - just a bias to one’s own initial opinion. And am sorry if it was understood differently. Bloger ( talk) 02:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The fact this article was only created after Donald Trump abused Turx demonstrates that this individual had no prior notability nor no lasting notability. Also, WP:NOTNEWS states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" AusLondonder ( talk) 03:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Although I had heard of Turx before the 'incident', I immediately searched for him on WP, fully expecting an article to be there, because that's where I always go to learn more about a subject. There was none, so I had to settle for whatever was written in the Heavy article. I imagine there were many others who encountered the same problem, but Bloger stepped in and wrote it (I considered starting one myself, but began to falter when I found discrepancies in the spelling of his actual surname). To the argument that this is a case of WP:1E, on the contrary, I see the incident as introducing Turx to the world. From the looks of it, he doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. That being said, the Media appearances section could definitely use a rewrite. StonyBrook ( talk) 05:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. With WP:NPASR. While there are indeed problems with SPA accounts drawn to this discussion due to the way the subject was treated by Trump, there are some claims that he might indeed be notable regardless of this incident. As such, this discussion might be best postponed for a few weeks until Trump has found someone else to shout down and the notability can be assessed properly. Even discounting the SPAs and other non-policy based arguments there is - at this time - no clear consensus to delete. So Why 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Jake Turx
- Jake Turx ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:1E. Subject came to media prominence last week after being shouted down by Donald Trump at the president's first press conference. This incident and follow-up interviews with Turx were widely covered by the top news media. Other than that, subject has no notability. The assertion that he is the first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps is unsourced. Most of this page is cobbled together from the subject's own LinkedIn and Facebook pages, YouTube uploads, and the local Lakewood Scoop. Every other day a new policy issue is added to the "multiple issues" template. Recommend delete until subject actually acquires significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Yoninah ( talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Favonian ( talk) 21:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The subject has already acquired significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources that are unarguably about him. Amid the dozens of sources in the article are a few that may be of lower quality, though the the nominator has failed to demonstrate that *ALL* of the sources fail to meet that standard. Issues with articles are great reasons to edit and discuss, but are rather poor arguments for deletion. The claim of notability as the first Hasidic Jew to become a member of the White House press corps is exceedingly strong and one that has received worldwide coverage. Tthe ample systemic bias faced by individuals in the Hasidic community needs to be considered and addressed. Alansohn ( talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ Alansohn:, I added the information about him asking the question at Trump's first press conference to Ami (magazine)#Coverage, where he is listed as the magazine's political correspondent. That's where that WP:1E event belongs. If you take away from this page all the sources that cite that press conference, you are left with nothing. No sources say he is the first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps. Yoninah ( talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I agree to the above I ask this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loz Gemachet ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Loz Gemachet ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete the 1 event that makes him famous can be covered (and already is) in the AMI magazine article. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Turx's writings are known far and wide; and has met the criteria of "notability" long before the episode last week gained him national and international recognition.
He is more then just "worthy of notice"; he is a writer of "note" who many readers turn to as their first read in Ami. He and his writings are "remarkable", "significant", extremely "interesting", and quite "unusual a writer" to say the least; and surely deserves the attention to be recorded. I cannot imagine what else a writer needs to be, to have an entry in Wikipedia. This page will get thousands of hits this year, of people curious to read who their favorite writer is. What's the big deal, when you have hundreds of entries like his and many of them much less significant; so why not have his deserved page too? Is it that an uphill battle these days to get anyone entered? Wikipedia is "the" depository of knowledge to which everyone turns, and such a significant entry definitely belongs there. Mountain top habitat ( talk) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
-
- Fits the criteria of "Creative professional", especially #2: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. He is unique in his style and technique. Mountain top habitat ( talk) 00:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Jake Turx has been a prominent journalist that has followed and interviewed many of the candidates throughout the entire 2016 campaign. He's worked his way up to becoming a White House Correspondent with his articles reaching a widespread audience as has he been any many shows even before his press conference inside. I strongly believe that his Wikipedia page should remain open though I'd suggest some editing to it as the deletion of the ill-written "media apprearances" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1derthere ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I do not like it and most of the content on this page is censored on my screen. However, from what I can see there are an abundance of references and sources for this page which show a broad range of coverage. Furthermore, it does make a claim of significance (several) some of which are substantiated with sources. Wiki-Coffee Talk 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a WP:1E article. The coverage everyone talks about is not about the individual, but rather about the incident. The other coverage is You-Tube coverage and self-posted articles. In-depth, significant coverage is lacking. Should this be changed to an article about the incident rather than the individual? reddogsix ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- With this said: It needs some serious tidying up to conform with WP:MOS and WP:BLP. To be honest after having looked at the article in more detail it seems disorganized and not in line with the standardized layouts of biographies on Wikipedia. While right now I am on a very weak keep I would look towards another AfD nomination in the future if the article remains in this state for some time., Wiki-Coffee Talk 00:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The fact is that he is the first Hasidic member of White House press corps. At least the part that he is “Orthodox” must be significant enough, for almost every report about the “Trump incident” felt the importance of mentioning it. Therefore, there must be something novel about it.
- He has just gotten this position, so it’s understandable that there are only a limited amount of coverage about him personally. However, the amount of coverage the “Trump incident” has garnered - For example, it was mentioned at least six times just in the NY Times alone [1] - shows the notability of the person.
- It’s my believe that if we establish that the fact of being “the first Hasidic member of White House press corps” is notable enough, as long as no one disputes it, the page should not be deleted.
- The fact that numerus editors, familiar with the publication and the individual, pointed out, on the talk page, his importance in the community, should also play a role in making the person “notable”.
Bloger (
talk) 00:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Let's be clear, the notability the subject needs to meet is Wikipedia based notability. It differs greatly from "real-world" notability. Again, the coverage we are all seeing is about the incident, not the individual. As for "importance in the community," please demonstrate how being important in the community is a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix ( talk) 00:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Just realized this in one of the NYT articles: “He is a singular presence in the briefing room: a young Hasidic Jew with side curls tucked behind his ears…” [2].
- So I guess the NYT “does” think this person is “notable”. Bloger ( talk) 00:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Show us where Wikipedia states being "first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps" denotes Wikipedia based notability. There is nothing in Wikipedia that states so. Simply put
notability is derived from from
WP:GNG.
reddogsix (
talk) 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - So do you need those exact words?.... Common sense must be applied. If he were the “first Jew”, would you agree its “notable”? Would you need someone to “show those words” to you?
Bloger (
talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Once again, simply put
notability is a result of
WP:GNG. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming the action drives notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
reddogsix (
talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - So, is him being “the first” something that needs to be “made” notable?
- Like, the fact that this is a step farther into the “acceptance of Jews” and one step farther away from how things used to be just 60-70 years ago - when Jews were prosecuted - isn’t that like “notable”? Do we need “a source” - let alone a “secondary source” - that “equality for all” is “notable”?
- Would the “first African American correspondent” not be “notable” according to your logic? Would we need a “source” or “secondary source” to establish its notability? Bloger ( talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Once again, simply put
notability is a result of
WP:GNG. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming the action drives notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
reddogsix (
talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - So do you need those exact words?.... Common sense must be applied. If he were the “first Jew”, would you agree its “notable”? Would you need someone to “show those words” to you?
Bloger (
talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Show us where Wikipedia states being "first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps" denotes Wikipedia based notability. There is nothing in Wikipedia that states so. Simply put
notability is derived from from
WP:GNG.
reddogsix (
talk) 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Rather than following you down the rabbit hole you seem to want to travel, I say once again, simply put notability is a result of WP:GNG. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming the action drives notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. My best to you. reddogsix ( talk) 04:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - He was treated shabbily by Trump. If that's all it took, there'd be a lot more notable people in the world. Beyond this one incident, there isn't much more of note. Glendoremus ( talk) 07:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Did many other incidents garner such coverage? Did those people get intervened on “Anderson Cooper”, “Anderson Cooper”, Sky News, NPR Etc. Etc.?
- Did you take into account the fact of him being the first Hasidic member of White House press corps?
- Did you take into account his importance to his community?
Bloger (
talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Again, it was the incident that garnered the coverage, not the individual. reddogsix ( talk) 19:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - It was the individual too.
- As is evident by the fact that every report about the incident made a point of mentioning his religious orientation. It wasn’t even that he is Jewish itself – which would make sense since it was a question about Anti-Semitism - but that was “an orthodox Jew”. And that’s clearly because of the novelty of an orthodox Jewish reporter in the white house. Bloger ( talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not news and we do not cover minor news incidents that have one day of coverage and then vanish. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - It happens to be that this one news story brought this person to the forefront, but the fact that he’s the “first Hasidic member of White House press corps” is notable regardless of this one incident.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - After considering the arguments above, It’s my opinion that the page should not be deleted. I think the reporter is notable enough, given his being the first Hasidic reporter in the White House.
- Also being an important person in a community should add notability. This story may have been what put the spotlight on him nationally and even internationally, but he’s a well-known and important member of the ultra-orthodox press for a couple of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisroel Tech ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Turx is currently very famous in the Orthodox community, for being their voice in the White House. Yes, this incident raised his profile, but made him now notable beyond this episode, and made him the leading voice within Orthodox Jewish media, when it comes to WH politics. He also became the face of the debate regarding the Trump administration's response to antisemitism, and his Tweet about it was retweeted 1,200 times and liked over 3,300 times [3]. I think that a comparison with Joe the Plumber is in place. Unlike Joe, whose notability came by a chance encounter with President Candidate McCain made him famous, Turx is a reporter, and his question and President Trump's outburst thrust him into the limelight. The notable episode and his notability are intertwined, in addition to his articles being read by tens of thousands, and his page should be kept. OrthodoxActivist ( talk) 22:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — OrthodoxActivist ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Joe the Plumber did not qualify for Wikipedia as a one-time event. He appeared several times on the campaign trail and also ran for office himself. Jake Turx has not reached that level of significant, ongoing, national coverage by any means. Yoninah ( talk) 22:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Additionally, retweeting and likes are an indication of popularity - in this case not a big indication of popularity. Being read by "tens of thousands" - although I would ask how you know this - is also an indication of popularity. Popularity in itself is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix ( talk) 23:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ Reddogsix: Ami has a circulation of about 25,000. [4] As cited in the article, Turx is the first reporter for Ami magazine to become a member of the White House press corps. Those of us who've been reading Ami for years (myself included) are pretty excited over that fact. But it doesn't make him notable by Wikipedia standards. Yoninah ( talk) 23:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- ^ https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22Jake+Turx%22/
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/trump-press-conference-jake-turx.html
- ^ https://twitter.com/JakeTurx/status/833729278848139265
- ^ Goldman, Ari L. (30 September 2015). "For ultra-Orthodox newspapers, women and the Web present growing challenges". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
- Comment - Given that some editors are getting so “bent out of shape” to delete this page. Even after many people have given their opinion for it to stay, pointing out the notability of the individual. I would like to show for compresence, a few people just out of the one Print/Internet section of the White House press corps page [1] - the very same section where this individual is mentioned - that have separate pages, with much less notability, much less worldwide coverage, and much less information about the individuals themselves Etc. Etc.
- Christoph von Marschall, Myles Miller, Susan Page, Tara Palmeri, Shannon Pettypiece, Sean Quinn (writer), Glenn Thrush, Lucian Wintrich, Yasmeen Sami Alamiri.
- So either at least some of those pages should be nominated for deletion - on the same basis as the deletion nomination of this page - or this page souled be left alone.
Bloger (
talk) 00:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Yoninah ( talk) 00:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bias? Please be specific as to where there is bias or anyone has gotten "bent out of shape" in any of these discussions, otherwise I suggest you WP:AGF. reddogsix ( talk) 00:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- No need to be specific, just compere other pages with similar or much less notability, meanwhile you have no problem with those pages. Many of the pages would have some of the same issues, yet common sense is used. Bloger ( talk) 01:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- You should realize that you are the only individual coming back repeatedly to try to refute each and every “Keep” argument.
- Even User:Yoninah - who initiated the delete conversation - only has a problem that the notability of him being the first Hasidic member of White House press corps is not sourced.
- That’s an argument that I can understand. And although It’s my opinion that as long as no one denies that fact, because he was just given that job, it should be taken into account and more time should be given for a proper “bio” article about him to be written.
- However, “I get” that argument.
- You On the other hand, don’t even want to agree that as “a first” it’s notable. Instead of addressing the argument when put to you, you just did a “copy/paste” and added a metaphor of a rabbit hole. Bloger ( talk) 01:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- </sigh>The real sadness is you have accused me of bias without any reason to. My failure to comment on other's notability is based solely on the fact I have not and cannot comment on every page out there - nor would I want to. To comment on pages without reviewing each would be unfair to those pages. Let me try to explain this as simply as possible. Being the first of anything is not what drives Wikipedia notability, what drives Wikipedia notability is meeting certain referencing criteria. If you can not understand simple statement, that I cannot help you. reddogsix ( talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- And I have pointed out again and again that the persistence in almost every article about this incident that the individual is an “orthodox Jew” - in addition to the quote from the NYT above - should be enough for notability. As it clearly points to the “novelty” of the situation in the eyes of all those reporters. And since in at least some cases – as in “the first African American” for example – common sense has to be applied, the same should be done here.
- BTW, it seems that you are taking the “bias” argument personnel and in the wrong way. So to clarify, I specifically added “seems to be” as I can’t really know if there is a bias or not. Secondly, I didn’t mean a bias in the “bad” sense of the word - like racial or otherwise - just a bias to one’s own initial opinion. And am sorry if it was understood differently. Bloger ( talk) 02:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The fact this article was only created after Donald Trump abused Turx demonstrates that this individual had no prior notability nor no lasting notability. Also, WP:NOTNEWS states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" AusLondonder ( talk) 03:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Although I had heard of Turx before the 'incident', I immediately searched for him on WP, fully expecting an article to be there, because that's where I always go to learn more about a subject. There was none, so I had to settle for whatever was written in the Heavy article. I imagine there were many others who encountered the same problem, but Bloger stepped in and wrote it (I considered starting one myself, but began to falter when I found discrepancies in the spelling of his actual surname). To the argument that this is a case of WP:1E, on the contrary, I see the incident as introducing Turx to the world. From the looks of it, he doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. That being said, the Media appearances section could definitely use a rewrite. StonyBrook ( talk) 05:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.