Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Turx (2nd nomination)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Jake Turx
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:1E and WP:BIO. The subject received a lot of media coverage for what happened to him at President Trump's first press conference in 2017. We have now had 2 years to see if he has any notability beyond that, and the answer is no. A possible claim to notability, being the first Hasidic Jew to become a member of the White House press corps, is sourced to a vimeo video. The page is now tagged with a laundry list of issues, most prominent among them the issue of notability. The subject himself has contributed unsourced biographical details to the page. I have tried to find sources for notability, without success. Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We went over this before. This is being nominated again by the same editor after an unsuccessful attempt before.
 * All that was discussed last time still is relative. At the time there was no consensus on deletion, I don’t see why now should be different. I don’t see the necessity of going thru the same process again just because… why not.
 * Link to the previous AfD for this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jake_Turx Bloger (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the subject is using this page as a vehicle for self-promotion is a problem. I have tried to dig up coverage to satisfy the notability requirement and keep him here, but without success. Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t know what you mean “the subject is using this page as a vehicle for self-promotion”, and if you have proof of this, and even if you do how this violates Wikipedia.
 * We have gone over this, and the fact that he is the first Hasidic Jew to hold this position in noteworthy.
 * There are numerus pages on Wikipedia for White house correspondence with equal or less notability, and this page has now been here for a couple of years, no harm has come and none should come from keeping the page.Bloger (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Meets basic WP:GNG and has lot's of credible references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter303x (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. I do not believe this individual is notable Lubbad85 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree to Northamerica1000, please let the page in question alive. Thanks.
 * Strong Keep Yes, someone with the username on his 2nd edit here tried to link Turx's personal email in the article. While unprofessional, and defying the rules and etiquette (not unlike that press conference incident), it's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While more sourcing would be nice, the article was written and survived a previous Afd based on what's already there. Other issues can be resolved with copyedits. This list has many unlinked names on it, and  that's because just being a WH correspondent, especially for an obscure publication like Ami, or even being the author of some obscure book, generally wouldn't pass GNG. If Trump's response to the question had been WP:MILL, we would have had a MILL subject, but instead we now have Turx forever seared into our memories with that train wreck of an exchange. The acrimonious tone of the response, directed at an Orthodox person, served to highlight Trump's awkward situation of enjoying support from both Orthodox Jews and the Alt-right, the latter accused of fomenting some of the antisemitism Turx asked the president about. StonyBrook (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that he's notable for a one-time event? The most important argument for notability is his being the first Hasidic Jew to become a member of the White House press corps, but that fact has been basically unsourced for two years. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He is known for more than just that one event. He is also a White House correspondent with lots of political exposure, and with other mentions in the press. But mostly I am arguing that Turx isn't a run-of-the-mill journalist, with the Hasidic thing definitely adding to that quirkiness. If the reporter who had asked the question had been someone more vanilla, for all we know the president's response would have been more balanced – and forgotten. It was the 'Turxiness' of Turx in my opinion that led to the incident more than the incident leads to Turx, much the same as it would have been if a Black Hebrew Israelite reporter with a Twitter handle emblazoned on his headdress had asked Trump what his administration was planning to do in response to the Shooting of Antwon Rose Jr. Therefore I don't even think it's correct to replace the article with something like Jake Turx press conference incident. It is well enough left alone as it is. StonyBrook (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Definitely Keep He is definitely not using it for self-promotion. I am familiar with his work, and as far as I know he is only interested in accuracy. Even if he did edit it himself, he is only doing so to give more information about himself for those curious about his background and how he ended up in the White House press corps. Please keep this page - I also have a hunch he may show up in the news again, as he may still go on to even greater things than he has been doing in the past — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.204.148 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User talk:38.105.204.148: that's a pretty strange comment for an AFD discussion. This is not a vote, but a discussion of whether the article meets Wikipedia's policy guidelines. Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Re-pinging
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like a textbook example of WP:1E. Subject has no claim to encyclopedic notability beyond the much discussed incident. He wrote a book but as far as I can tell does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Being a member of the White House Press Corps does not confer notability. The pro-Keep comments above are unimpressive and seem to be going into contortions to avoid addressing the issue in the light of WP:PAG. I would encourage the reviewing admin to keep NOTAVOTE in mind when closing this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2019 (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.