Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Maté

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Maté

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Aaron Maté (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail of WP:GNG. Single reference provided is to a film review. WP:BEFORE doesn't show multiple secondary sources to attest for notability. nearlyevil665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Although several additional footnotes have been added to the article since the time of nomination, they still aren't good or notability-making ones. #1 is a news story about something else which happens to glancingly namecheck Aaron Maté's existence in the process of not being about Aaron Maté, which doesn't assist in making him notable. #2 tangentially verifies the existence of Maté's mother, without saying anything at all about Aaron to assist in making him notable. #3 is the film review mentioned in the nomination — which also just briefly mentions his name without being about him to any non-trivial degree, and thus doesn't singlehandedly make him notable all by itself. #4 is just a directory of his own contributions to a news outlet — but you don't make a journalist notable enough for Wikipedia by verifying the extent to which he's been the bylined author of media coverage about other things, you make a journalist notable enough for Wikipedia by verifying the extent to which he's been the subject of media coverage written by other people. #5 and #6 are both directly affiliated with the claim being made — the Izzy Award is not a notability-clinching journalism award that would pass WP:ANYBIO, but a student journalism award presented by a university journalism school, and the sources for it are that self-same university's own student newspaper and the self-published website of the award committee. But that's not how you turn any award into a notability claim — if general market media coverage about the award presentation is lacking, then an award is not a notability maker just because you can technically metareference the award to itself. So no, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added more reliable sources to the article, including a direct link to the National Film Board of Canada's full-length documentary Discordia, and contemporaneous reports of his arrest during the Concordia University Netanyahu riot. It's my opinion that his notoriety from the Netanyahu incident (including being the lead subject in a documentary about the event), his significant contribution to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine (as credited in the book) and his subsequent political reporting in the United States have made him a notable figure. The lorax (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability is not supported by sources in which Maté is doing the speaking or writing; it requires sources in which he is the subject that other people are speaking about in the third person. So among the sources that don't help: transcripts of radio interviews where he's the speaking guest and not the subject being spoken about; articles that briefly namecheck his existence in the process of being primarily about other things besides him; being mentioned in the acknowledgements/thanks section of a book that isn't about him; university student media; streaming copies of films that he happens to appear in, without any third party analysis about his appearance in the film to establish the notability of the film. Which basically wipes out all of the new sources you've added. Again: notability is not supported by verifying that he's done stuff, it's supported by showing independent third party analysis about the stuff he's done. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Bearcat:, I've added additional sources which I think more explicitly establishes Maté's notability. I added a transcript of news segment referring to him and his arrest during the Netanyahu riot in the third person on CBC's The National, a college thesis paper analyzing his struggle over his Jewish identity on Concordia University's campus as seen in the film Discordia, and his most recent rise in influence, cited in Axios and MediaVillage.The lorax (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The National: Not a new source you've added since the last time I commented, but a source that I already addressed the last time I commented. It isn't coverage about Maté, but is simply a transcript of an interview in which Maté is doing the speaking.

Axios: Not coverage or analysis about Maté, but just briefly mentions his name in a very short blurb about something else.

MediaVillage: Not an actual reliable source media outlet, but explicitly describes itself in its own "about us" statement as a B2B marketing platform.

University student theses: do not help to establish notability at all.

We're not looking for just any web content you can find that happens to have his name present in it. We're looking for a certain specific caliber of coverage in which he is the subject of reportage and analysis, in a certain specific caliber of trusted media outlets and published books. And while you have used a few sources that satisfy the latter part of that equation (although most of the footnotes still don't), you've added no sources that satisfy the former part of the equation by being substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Testifying to the United Nations would meet any reasonable "notability" requirement I would think. But in the case that it doesn't it seems this would meet your criteria of "him being the subject of reporting/analysis". https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/useful-idiots-taibbi-aaron-mate-russiagate-bombshells-1000646/. Unless you're referring to only biographical material or some sort of material chronicling his life story? Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The extent to which testifying to the United Nations constitutes a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which there has or hasn't been third-party journalism done about his testimony to establish that it was seen as a significant event by people other than his own public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment I personally believe Mate is notable for being a leader of the anti-Russiagate movement coming from the left. He is very commonly cited as such. The problem is that he has thus far not been the subject of significant coverage yet apparently. The argument for notability here would have to use the "loopholes" available to journalists at WP:JOURNALIST but I don't have the capacity right now to make that justification. Nweil (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This person has been involved in multiple notable events. He was a major figure in the Concordia University Netanyahu riot (a significant event in Montreal history), a key subject in a major documentary (Discordia), has made widely recognized contributions in his reporting about Russiagate, is an Izzy Award winner (which I would argue is a major journalism award) and is widely cited by his peers i.e. Matt Taibbi.The lorax (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have to source his win of an Izzy Award to the Izzy Awards' own self-published content about themselves, because independent media coverage of the Izzy Awards is nonexistent, then it isn't "major" enough to make its winners notable because they won it. Being a "major" figure in a riot is not a notability freebie just because it's possible to verify that he was there; it requires analysis of the significance of his role in it. And on and so forth: notability is not "did stuff", it's "received analytical coverage about the stuff he did", and none of the sources being shown here are analytical ones. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Independent media coverage of the Izzy is not nonexistent; see below. Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I included additional coverage from The Ithacan and the Ithaca Voice for Maté winning the Izzy Award, that should help satisfy notability requirements at least in that case. The lorax (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The Ithacan is the student newspaper of the university whose journalism school presents the Izzy Awards, so it isn't fully independent of the Izzy Awards for the purposes of making them a notability-securing award — and the Ithaca Voice is a hyperlocal "online-only nonprofit news site" (description copied directly from its own "about us" page on its own website!) based in the same small city where that university is located, so it's not really doing much more to help either since it's still just a local newspaper covering local news. If you want to make the Izzy Awards a notability claim that clinches Aaron Maté's inclusion in Wikipedia all by itself, you need to show that it gets broadly covered in sources on the New York Times/Los Angeles Times/Chicago Sun-Times/Atlanta Journal-Constitution tier of major daily newspapers, not just a university student newspaper and a community hyperlocal in the same small town. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. Testifying at the U.N. must bring some level of notability too. Wknight94 ^talk 12:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

What sources in the article are verifying that he passes JOURNALIST #1? Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. Note (at least) references 17, 24,31, all of which demonstrate he is an important enough figure to have his opinion considered; the presence of even only his name shows the importance of his body of work. Also, respected enough to write an article for The Nation. Strong "keep." Although not "broadly" cited in major publications, the Izzy Award is cited by them on a PRN basis. The award seems to be significant enough to have been reported by NPR and NYT Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

People get over GNG by being the subject that other people are writing about, not just by having his opinions soundbited in articles about subjects that aren't him. And neither of the citations you've offered here are notability-building coverage about the Izzy Awards — they're just glancing mentions of the Izzy Awards in coverage about David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald. Again, the notability test is not "the topic has had its name has been mentioned in the media" — it is "the topic has been the subject of substantive coverage about it in the media", and nobody has yet offered any sources that get either Aaron Maté or the Izzy Awards over that bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Even the sources cited acknowledge the rather fringe nature of Maté's work. For example, the Vanity Fair piece—quoted in the article for describing him as a "polite but dogged skeptic" who is notable for an interview he did—does so within the context of a full paragraph of commentators and bloggers "who were ignored for much of this stretch". The strongest argument for notability seems to be the documentary from 18 years ago, where he is one of three subjects. If that is significant enough, it might be added to the Concordia University Netanyahu riot itself, but the journalistic career of Maté doesn't seem to justify a standalone article. His two cited appearances—for about 90 and 180 seconds, respectively—on The Hill's morning TV and a smattering of one- or two-line references elsewhere do not seem to show that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The UN testimony is not a strong indicator in this case, either; the wording of the article makes it sound like a formal hearing or meeting of a UN body, but it was an Arria formula meeting. Accordingly, the only coverage of it seems to be from Maté himself on Grayzone plus a handful of other far-left sites. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Re' "regarded as an important figure:" He is important enough to his peers to have his opinions widely cited. Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And where are the sources writing about him as a subject of coverage? Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't get why mainstream US media should decide what's on Wikipedia. He's been called in to speak for the UN for chrissakes, that shows that he's more notable than half of the journalists on wikipedia. The corporate media monopoly already has enough power, no need to insist that they should dictate wikipedia too. I'm even surprised about the suggestion, this is not the wikipedia I used to know and love. Iskube (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Because firstly, if we exempted people from having to have media coverage, and instead allowed them to keep articles based on unreliable and primary and self-published sources, then we would have to keep an article about every single person who has a social networking profile on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or LinkedIn. And secondly, people have actually lied about themselves in their own marketing materials, in an attempt to get themselves included in Wikipedia on the basis of "passing" inclusion criteria that they didn't really pass — musicians claiming chart hits they didn't really have, writers claiming literary award nominations they never really got, and on and so forth — so the inclusion test for people is not the things he claims about himself in self-published sources, but requires independent verification in sources he didn't control. Notability, accordingly, is not measured by the things an article does or doesn't say, but by the depth and quality and reliability and independence of the sources that can or can't be cited to support the things it says. It requires independent analysis, not self-promotional claims, so it requires independent media coverage to verify that the notability claims are actually true. And no, this isn't different from the Wikipedia of yore, either — supporting notability with reliable sources has always been the rule, people just haven't always obeyed it. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. 198.167.198.158 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2021 (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.