Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Canova

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No consensus for a particular action has resulted from this discussion. North America1000 08:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Canova[edit]

Tim Canova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a criterion that gets a candidate over WP:NPOL -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the seat. This article, however, makes no valid claim that he had preexisting notability for anything -- it's written like a campaign brochure, and two of the three citations are to a Reddit AMA (not a reliable source.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. John Z (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Although the article obviously needs improvement, Canova's primary opponent, Wasserman Schultz, has drawn considerable criticism for what has been seen as using the DNC for inappropriate partisan efforts in the presidential primary to support Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Canova has also differed substantially with DWS on major divisive issues in the District such as fracking in the Everglades, for-profit prisons especially in Broward County, etc. That could put this safe Democratic seat into play. Activist (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At best, that means that he deserves a solid mention in *her* article, since you're basing his notability purely based on her. He does not have any notability as per WP:NPOL. Blackbird_4 00:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. This isn't just some also-ran in some nondescript congressional race. This is a highly publicized run against the party chair who is highly controversial. I ended up here because I was seeking more info about this noteable and fascinating race, and who is the challenger involved. There will be a large amount of traffic just like me. Come back in November and delete it if he doesn't win. This is big news. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opposition. I tried to modify the article today so that it conformed more to Wikipedia standards which was no small task, and found this candidate could certainly be considered notable even if he wasn't running at all. For instance, I'm gathering that he's written dozens of prestigious journal articles, book chapters, etc. His graduate work has been done at two top-tier institutions, and he graduated magna cum from Georgetown. He's presented on the law end economics in a wide variety of top tier forums. He's drawn notice in this race from the national press. He is not a vanity or gadfly candidate, it appears. Activist (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where a person studied does not constitute a notability claim in and of itself. And writing journal articles or book chapters only counts as notability if reliable source media coverage has written about his writing of journal articles or book chapters — it does not constitute notability if your only source for it is the publication details of his own content in a directory. And a person does not get over WP:NACADEMIC just because their academic work is presented as background information in coverage of the candidacy, either — the academic work has to, in and of itself, be the context of what he's getting covered for. As currently written and sourced, none of this actually demonstrates that he's anything other than a WP:BLP1E at the present time — it's certainly possible that he actually might be, but nothing here shows that properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A candidate for office does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because he's running against a nationally known figure. It might be possible that he actually has preexisting notability for something other than his candidacy, but this article as written and sourced isn't demonstrating that — it's still written fundamentally like a promotional campaign brochure rather than a neutral encyclopedia article, it's sourced entirely to campaign coverage with not a single reliable source dated anytime prior to his announcement of his candidacy, and none of the content or sourcing suggests that he's anything more than a WP:BLP1E at the present time. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WillMorganSeattle:@Bearcat:, When I first reviewed recommendations for deletion, I looked at what he had done before he filed for this district seat. I had no idea what I'd find. What I quickly discovered was that Canova has been an extremely important voice in the field of economics going back to the '80s, at quite a young age. He had an op-ed in the NY Times in 1996 making a case for not reappointing Alan Greenspan as Fed chairman. His opposition to deregulation was truly prescient. Here's a economics paper that cited articles he wrote from 1995-2009. file:///C:/Users/Public/Documents/Downloaded%20Installers/SSRN-id2072595.pdf Here's a comment by Noam Chomsky, one of the most infleuntial voices regarding international politics for more than 50 years, and who has regularly cited Canova for years: https://chomsky.info/20081102/ So, what are we to make of Chomsky's comments such as these, as opposed to your dismissive opinion on Canova?:

Rubin is the chairman of the Executive Committee of Citigroup, and as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, bears substantial responsibility for the deregulation mania that was a crucial factor in the current disaster – from which, incidentally, he gained considerably when he moved from Clinton’s Treasury Department to his present position, leading international economist Tim Canova to ask why charges are not brought against him “for his obvious violations of the Ethics in Government Act.”

Activist (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's always possible to find "multiple journalist written news articles" about any candidate for any political office — the media have an obligation to cover local politics, so coverage in the context of the candidacy falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot show or bolster the person's notability so long as they're still only a candidate rather than an actual officeholder. And a person also does not get a Wikipedia article just because you can find academic papers in which they've been cited, or quotes in which other notable people have glancingly namechecked their existence — what's necessary to save this, but has not yet been shown, is reliable source coverage about his academic career. I'm not being "dismissive" at all — Wikipedia's rules for political candidates are that either (a) you show, and properly source, that they were already eligible for an article before they became a candidate, or (b) they do not become eligible for an article just on the basis of the candidacy alone, but must win the seat before they become eligible. I already said that it's possible that he might have enough preexisting notability to be eligible for an article on that basis — but you haven't shown that properly as of yet, because you're showing candidacy coverage and not sources in which he was getting substantively covered in the context of his prior career. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WillMorganSeattle:@Bearcat:@Blackbird 4: While your original opinion regarding nomination of this article for deletion had valid points, you did not try to improve the article, despite Wikipedia policy recommending that alternative, Bearcat. Then when other editors contributed substantial improvements to the article, your intent seems rather to be determined to minimize or ignore the subject's notability in the academic fields of law and finance, despite the copious body of contributions he has made in that arena. cf Wikipedia:Notability (academics);. Canova has contributed dozens of articles to prestigious academic journals over the past two decades. Articles about Canova's work have appeared for that period of time. He was selected by the NY Times in 1996 to write an Op-Ed regarding the case against renomination of Fed Chairman Greenspan. In 2011, he was deliberately recruited to join a small group of some of the most prestigious economists in the U.S. by Senator Sanders, to contribute to the crafting of economic policy initiatives. He was not casually (or. as you pejoratively term it, "glancingly" "namechecked") mentioned by Chomsky, when the opposite is demonstrably the case. Canova's career of significant academic influence is at the core of his notability, not his candidacy. You're painting yourself into a corner with these ever more insubstantial arguments. Activist (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "Articles about Canova's work have appeared for that period of time", but you still haven't shown any. As of today, the article is still based entirely on candidacy coverage, and you haven't contributed any proof of preexisting academic notability coverage in this discussion either — you're just asserting that it's there, without showing the reliable source proof that it's there. And the Noam Chomsky quote, at least the one you provided here, is just a glancing namecheck of his existence rather than substantive proof of notability — if there's more to it than you quoted, then you need to show that, but what you quoted is not in and of itself sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article.
And, for the record, I already did all the WP:BEFORE that I can do with the resources I have access to, and came to the conclusion that there just wasn't enough reliable source coverage there. I'm under no obligation to personally take it upon myself to be the fixer of any article I don't have the necessary background knowledge, or the necessary source repositories, to fix myself — if you want the article to be kept, then the onus is on you to make it keepable. I've said all along that preexisting notability may be there for other things prior to his candidacy — but this article, as written and sourced, is not showing that in the manner necessary to make it keepable on that basis. And if you feel that strongly that the preexisting notability is there, then you need to make the necessary edits to show that better than it's being shown right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WillMorganSeattle:@Bearcat:@Blackbird 4:I'm not "asserting" anything, Bearcat, without providing sources and take exception to such a characterization. For instance, present citation #2, "Selected Works," contains 11 important articles dating from 1990 to 2013, published in three languages. When I went to Google Books, per Wikipedia advice, and found almost 5,000 citations, with those that I looked at mostly referencing his contributions to the thoughts of other academics and critics, or were acknowledgments for his direct assistance in the writing of those books, the vast majority of which were made long before he announced his candidacy this year. Google Books is no more accessible to me than it is to you, and another editor referred to nearly 9,000 newspaper references to Canova. Your initial observations regarding the AFD were absolutely legitimate, but those reservations have been addressed exhaustively, IMHO. I'm beginning to feel like I'm trying to explain evolution to the Chairperson of the Flat Earth Society. Activist (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've already pointed out above, Citation #2, "Selected Works", is not other people writing about his academic writing, but is a simple directory listing of his academic writings — and thus, it is not a source that can get him over WP:NACADEMIC for that writing. You're not getting what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, if you think that source counts for anything — there's a big difference between verification of notability and verification of existence, but that citation only verifies his existence, and does not confer notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. I agree that this page needs improvement and is a work-in-progress, but regarding academic "notability", I believe source #3 is sufficient for that: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/top-economists-to-advise-sanders-on-fed-reform. Being called a top economist by a press release by a U.S. senator when enlisted as an advisor on the Fed, especially when listed with nobel prize winners and household names, definitely is a reliable source to me for his academic reputation. I'm sure other reliable sources and coverage of his academic career will turn up as this page gets improved, give it time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crrl333 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Crrl333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That's a press release from a political campaign, not media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're deliberately misrepresenting what it is. You've made the claim that you've looked at all these references, and therefore you're aware that the Sanders press release is five years old, not about Canova, not about any electoral campaign at all, but about the task put to the 17 experts appointed to that advisory group by the Senator who is the leading advocate in that body for change in the Fed, though he since has been joined by Elizabeth Warren. Activist (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the first of 800 or so pages of Google Books citations, including repeated references to Canova by Chomsky.

Hopes and Prospects - Page 306 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1931859965 Noam Chomsky - 2010 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Tim Canova, “The Legacy of the Clinton Bubble,” Dissent, Summer 2008, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229. David Felix, “Asia and the Crisis of Financial Globalization,” in Baker, Epstein, Pollin, eds., Globalization and ... The Obama Vs. Romney Debate on Economic Growth: A ... - Page 349 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1475940696 Samuel C. Thompson - 2012 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions For example, during World War II marginal rates were as high as 90% and yet real economic growth ranged from 8.1% in 1944 to 18.5% in 1942.407 Professor Tim Canova makes the following point concerning the economic growth during the ... Infringement Nation: Copyright 2.0 and You - Page xi https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0199750106 John Tehranian - 2011 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions I would also like to express my gratitude to Peter Afrasiabi, Josh Agle, Safa Alamir, Chris Arledge, Mark Bartholomew, Tom Bell, Oren Bracha, Dan Burk, Dan Burn-Forti, Tim Canova, Anupam Chander, Hiram Chodosh, Chris Collins, Jay ... Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0872865592 Noam Chomsky - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Financial economist Tim Canova writes thatRubin had“a personal interest inthedemise of GlassSteagall.” Soon after leaving his position asTreasury Secretary, Rubin became “chair of Citigroup,a financialservices conglomerate that wasfacing ... Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility - Page 298 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307959805 Robert Kuttner - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Others who helped in innumerable ways included Michel Aglietta, Phil Angelides, Gerry Arsenis, Sheila Bair, Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein, Marc Blecher, Alan Blinder, Andreas Botsch, Pia Bungarten, Tim Canova, Peter Coldrick, Andrea ... Law, Bubbles, and Financial Regulation https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1134642768 Erik F. Gerding - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions 80th Anniversary of the Great Crash of 1929: Law, Markets, and the Roleofthe State ̄organized by Tim Canova, the2009Rocky Mountain Junior LegalScholars Workshop organized by GordonSmithat BYU,the2010 Conference on International ... Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court Versus The ... - Page ix https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1135952728 Jamin B. Raskin - 2004 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions ... Paul Butler, Peter Raven-Hansen and Jeffrey Rosen at George Washington; Lani Guinier at Harvard; Tim Canova at the University of New Mexico; Burt Neuborne at New York University; Erwin Chemerinsky at the University of California, Los ... It's Your Money https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0968068111 William F. Hixson - 1997 - ‎Preview I have received much valuable input from COMER members and close associates: most notably, the late John Hotson, William Krehm, William Henry Pope, Tim Canova, Paul Hellyer, Jack Biddell and Robert Good. The task of transforming my ... Citizen's Guide to U.S. Economic Growth and the Bush-Kerry ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0595330207 Samuel C. Thompson - 2004 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions This course, which I periodically taught with Professor Tim Canova who is now with Chapman University School of Law, examined not only microeconomic concepts, which are frequently examined in law school courses, such as antitrust, but ... Whitewashed: America’s Invisible Middle Eastern Minority https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0814782736 John Tehranian - 2010 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to my students, colleagues, friends, and family, especially Peter Afrasiabi, Tony Anghie, Chris Arledge, Mark Bartholomew, Ruba Batnaji, Steven Burt, Tim Canova, Zev Eigen, Martha Ertman, ... I hope that will suffice... Activist (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the links you've listed here, nearly all of them are the simple presence of his name in the acknowledgements sections of the "cited" books, and not to any substantive discussion about him in the books' content sections. That falls under "glancing namechecks", not "substantive coverage" — a person does not get a Wikipedia article just because some other writer listed their name in the "thank you to mom, dad, David Bowie and God" page at the end of the book. And the only links in which his name actually appears in the content section of the book still just passingly namecheck his existence while not being about him in any discernible way. This is not a situation where you're bringing solid sources which properly show his notability and I'm just being unreasonable or refusing to acknowledge them — you are bringing sources that are not substantively enough about him to satisfy what our sourcing rules require. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your contentions simply do not reflect reality, Bearcat: Canova has contributed substantially to critical thought in both academia and public discourse about a plethora of issues in his fields of focus, such as the role and performance of the Fed, the influence and genesis of Occupy Wall Street, the use of and danger inherent in the proliferation of shaky financial instruments in an overheated, speculative, economy, the pervasive fraud omnipresent in the Wall Street milieu, the abject failure of regulatory mechanisms, and the role of corporate contributions in the distortion of democratic institutions and the democratic process itself. You also apply a inappropriate standard to judging his notability in his field. He's been writing for decades in many of the most influential journals in his field. The editors of these publications solicit contributions from him, or consider his submissions, and weigh consideration regarding prospective publication on what they believe will be the impact that content may have on thought in the field and upon their subscribers. His work may generate discourse amongst practitioners, or they are solicited to respond in the same or subsequent issues of those journals and other professors might introduce the material to their classrooms in schools of law. No one is going to review his or his peers' writings in newspapers or on television to analyze plot twists, or character presentations or development, or the likelihood that they will be optioned as the basis for a movie, so that can't be the basis for judging his notability. That would be using wholly inapplicable criteria. He's not writing novels for entertainment value and consumption of the general public. Notability in his field in fact is recognized by the publication of his articles in so many influential journals themselves...that is validation for his importance. Now secondly, your demand to be spoon-fed his writings or commentaries about him by others is wholly unreasonable. I actually went to the pages of the first Chomsky mentions and laboriously copied them (I don't believe there's any other way to do it) by reading them on my P.C. and then typing out the excerpts on my laptop and sending them to my self. It's tedious, when if you wanted to actually know what was in them, you could simply click on URLs. However, you claim you're too busy to do that, so you apparently dismiss them without any actual knowledge of their content. I presume your labors are largely expended in making tens of thousands of immensely important Hotcat additions to articles about obscure movies. I really can't fathom any interest you might have at all. So I stopped after transcribing this:

Hopes and Prospects: Noam Chomsky ELECTIONS 2008: HOPE CONFRONTS THE REAL WORLD Page 219: Economist Tim Canova comments that Rubin had “a personal interest in the demise of Glass-Steagall.” Soon after leaving his position as treasury secretary, he became “chair of Citigroup, a financial-services conglomerate that was facing the possibility of having to sell off insurance underwriting subsidiary...the Clinton administration never brought charges against him for his obvious violations of the Ethics in Government Act.”(footnote 24) Page 221: Tim Canova observes: “Supporters of President-elect Obama will be tempted to embrace the experience argument, and it true that Geithner and Summers have lots of experience at crisis management and doling out bailout funds to their Wall Street clientele.” As the crisis began to hit, Geithner hinted that he would use the enormous leverage he had as president of the New York Fed to impose some controls on exotic financial instruments, but “there is no evidence,” Canova writes, “that there has been much action, even though Geithner has used this time to negotiate multibillion-dollar bailouts and deals associated with the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AGI and now, Citigroup.”

This isn't bestowing kudoes upon David Bowie, or giving thanks to your mommy and daddy, or God. I never claimed that it was: This was your trivialization of the recognition of the value of Canova's work to the analysis of important issues of our times. This is recognition of Canova's work coming from one of the most important thinkers of the 20th and 21st Centuries taking note in a widely circulated book of the relevance of Canova's observations. Since you find it too much of a burden to simply click on a URL, I'll post one of his many, more recently published articles, this one from Dissent to your TALK page. How's that? If you want more, just exercise the index finger on your right hand on the mouse or touchpad you're using. Activist (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about me "trivializing" anything, and it's not about me "finding it too much of a burden to simply click on an URL".
I've already said several times in this discussion that he may have the notability necessary to get over WP:NACADEMIC — but a person does not get over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion just because they're asserted as passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, they get over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion by being properly sourced as passing the criterion. And I have clicked on and personally reviewed every single URL you've provided — and right across the board those URLs are simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to make an academic notable.
Right across the board, the sources you've provided so far have been (a) content for which he was the author, and not the subject, of the work, (b) mentions of his name in the acknowledgements section of a book which doesn't contain even one single solitary mention of his name anywhere else in the entire book besides the acknowledgements page, (c) brief mentions of his name in the content section of one or two books, which is a step in the right direction compared to the other two types of "sourcing", but unfortunately fail to be about him in enough of a substantive way to get him over the bar by themselves. You still have not provided a single source that actually provides proper support for notability as an academic. And not because I'm "trivializing" anything, or "refusing" to even consider it — because the sources simply are not what the sources have to be.
And posting the entire text of an article he wrote to my talk page was not the correct approach either: for one thing, that violates our WP:COPYVIO rules, and had to be removed. And for two, as I've already explained several times a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of the citations, not the author of them.
One more time: I'm not "trivializing" anything, or "refusing" to look at the sources you're providing. I have looked at all of the sources you've provided here, and they're simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to get this where you want it to be. And kindly take your condesecending attitude and put it in the garbage can — the problem here is not anything that I'm failing or refusing to do. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading or ignoring [notability criteria for academics], not limited to the following: "For instance, The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research," and "...publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals." Activist (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you're missing the part where even those criteria still have to be sourced to media coverage about those things, and not to primary sources. No notability criterion on Wikipedia can ever be passed by simply asserting or primary-sourcing it — notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is conferred or withheld by the existence or non-existence of media coverage about the distinction that's being claimed, not by the claim in and of itself. An academic does not get an article just because his "our faculty" profile on the website of his own institution, or a directory of downloadable PDFs of his academic writing, verifies that he exists; he gets an article when media are writing substantive third party content about him in that role. A novelist does not get an article on the basis of her own books' promotional profiles on Amazon or Goodreads demonstrating that her novels exist; she gets an article when media are writing substantive third party content about her writing career. And on, and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that when you're reviewing thousands of articles and doing Hotcat changes, that you regularly ignore the fact that they're stub articles, or entirely sourced to the subject themselves, or are entirely self-published (i.e., writer R.R. Turock, who may never have sold a book), but you don't recommend deletion of those articles. Another article you worked on is of a nonentity who has done voices in a handful of anime shorts. He would be completely unknown, save for someone noting the names of those who were cast for the voice parts. You didn't have a problem with that. Yet you have consistently minimized the widespread recognition that Canova has gotten in your efforts to remove the article about him. You also have not responded to my request that you remove from this and the article itself, those legitimate issues in your AfD that you brought up weeks ago, i.e., the Reddit sourcing, that have been been amply resolved for some time. If editors visit only this page, they would not be aware that those issues have long been cured. Activist (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor is simply making routine maintenance edits to an article within a maintenance batch, such as removing an inappropriate category via Hotcat or tagging a page as uncategorized via AWB, that does not necessarily constitute evidence in and of itself that the editor in question has done a detailed review of that article's content. I am not personally responsible for catching every possible content issue in an article to which I'm applying an automated maintenance edit — AWB, especially, is a spectacularly ineffective tool for actually doing full-on content reviews of articles.
And again, for the last freaking time, I am not "minimizing" anything that has been properly demonstrated and sourced — you have so far tried to park his notability as an academic on sources that cannot carry his notability as an academic, such as glancing namechecks in the acknowledgements sections of other writers' books, and have yet to show even one single solitary source of the type that can properly confer notability on an academic by virtue of representing substantive coverage about his academic work in reliable sources. All I'm doing is looking objectively at the sources that are being offered — and so far those sources are not good enough to carry what you want them to carry. Again: a person does not get an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist, or because primary sources and glancing namechecks confirm that they exist — a person gets included in Wikipedia by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources which demonstrate that they pass an inclusion criterion, and you're not showing the kind of sources that it takes. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON applies here. If and when this subject has demonstrated notability, an article can easily be created. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be helpful, Bearcat, if you would remove your resolved complaints, such as the one about the long gone "Reddit" citation," from the AfD notice you posted. Their retention muddies the waters. Activist (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. While I agree that the article when originally flagged did not meet notability requirements, however I spent some time adding edits (as well as Activist) that I believe address the original concerns. The article as it stands now meets notability requirements and this article should no longer be considered for deletion. Bluestategirl (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject is notable because of sources establishing notability. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN. Article was started during campaign for office, so there are 2 questions here 1.) Would he have qualified for an article before he announced his candidacy. 2.) Has coverage during his candidacy broken though the WP:POLITICIAN barrier: "can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources." Nothing in the article shows per-candidacy notability. I checked him on Proquest Newspapers and found only 2 per-candidacy mentions, 1 where he gives a single sentence quote and 1 where he is listed as taking part in a panel. So, no, it does not appear that he could have had an article before this candidacy. It would be highly unusual for a candidate for a congressional seat to pass the notability bar during the campaign. And I cannot make an argument that it has happened in this case. Coverage of the campaign is mostly regional and routine. He has attracted some national coverage, however, the handful of national coverage that goes beyond mentioning him in a list of contenders to win a seat in Congress, does so in the coverage like Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Challenger Has a Chance [1], or this, [2], articles, that is, that are about the race, fall under WP:POLITICIAN and do not carry Canova past WP:N.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Bearcat. Do we simply delete or do we redirect Tim Canova to the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz article, 2016 campaign section? Whatever the usual practice is in this situation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that you found only two minor mentions of Tim Canova pre-candidacy - did you search for Timothy A. Canova? Given that he wrote a very high-profile op-ed in the New York Times regarding Greenspan that put him on the map as a opponent of the Federal Reserve's policies back in the 1990s, I'm surprised that any search wouldn't even turn up that opinion piece. Bluestategirl (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw it and did not include it because having an op-ed published is not an indication of notability, a subject's own published work never is - unless the work gets covered by other media, as some books, articles and op-eds do. What is needed are articles that profile or describe him in some depth. Searching Proquest on "Timothy A. Canova" turns up 31 hits (many duplicates) but almost all are articles, letters to the editor, and op-eds that Canova wrote Another editor just came to my talk page to assert that there are "hundreds" of pre-candicacy hits on Canova's full name. I admit that, having gotten hits on "Tim", I didn't think of using "Timothy". "Timothy Canova" got 56 hits (count includes duplicates.) The problem is that all seem to be like the 2 per-candidacy hits on "Tim Canova" - they merely quote him or list him as being on a panel. The pre-candidacy article from Z Communications does not seem to be a source that supports notability. What would make me reconsider is if someone combs through Proquest or similar archives and finds pre-candidacy coverage in major, reliable media that cover the man and his career in some depth. Flag me to return if that happens.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • New editors who have weighed in during the heat of a major congressional campaign should consider that we here at Wikipedia are not paid staffers, but, rather, dedicated volunteers like most of the people who work on Congressional campaigns. As editors we are dedicated to running an encyclopedia that strives to uphold objective and consistent standards. We do it using both case and black letter law (WP:POLITICIAN). If Canova wins, you can celebrate by giving him an article as soon as the ballots are counted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is really odd that we have a number of accounts voting (all of them keep) who have been here for years, have couple of dozen edits and apparently have difficulties with wiki-markup. It is clear that they have been canvassed, their votes do not contain policy-based arguments and should be ignored, But then we have insufficient discussion, and since there are at least two users in good standing voting keep, it is best to relist the discussion for one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WillMorganSeattle:@Ymblanter:@Bluestategirl:@Montoya44:@MrWooHoo:@Crrl333:@50-34-103-73:Dear Ymblanter, a.k.a., "Fearless Fosdick." Thanks for letting us all know who is a legitimate opponent of deletion of this article and who is not. Your deductive skills are amazing. So those who are voting to keep can be identified by the following characteristics: They, "...have (sic) couple of dozen edits and have difficulties with wiki-markup." Let's examine that contention.
A. The article on Canova was started on 22 February, this year. Remember that date.
B. Those voting to keep {"at least two of us 'in good standing', though plagued with "limited wiki-markup" (sic) skills"} are (clearly) up to no good, assumptions of good faith notwithstanding.
Me, editing since 2006. 3309 edits to date, counting this one. BUT(!) I only made a few edits, the first couple of years. Obviously I was a plant (so to speak) by those who are planning to take over Wikipedia via the pod people.
WillMorganSeattle, since 6/20/07, but only 61 edits. This is very suspicious. We will get to the bottom of this.
Bluestategirl, who has been editing since April '08. Only 44 edits. What does that tell us? Hmmm.
Montoya44, since 1/10/10 Only 33 edits. I zink ve are startink to zee ein pattern, hier.
MrWooHoo, since 8/2013 2703 total edits. (Ignore him. Not part of the pattern. Obviously only here to throw those determined sleuths off the track.)
Crrl333, since 1/31/16 Only Five total edits. Four are to Debbie's article, before there was a Canova article, the last to Tim's. A "newbie." A fifth columnist, no doubt.
And here's the kicker: 50-34-103-73, who's made 20 edits editing since making one to the Rocky Horror show lip syncher's article on 1/23/16, five weeks before the Canova article was posted (how's that for prescience?). Ve vill get to ze bottom ov zis!
Let me summarize: Four editors who have a total of 23 years editing at Wikipedia, might have "limited wiki-markup skills?" How can you possibly explain that? What do you think about that, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!!! How's that for part of the worldwide commie conspiracy?
So tell me, "Ymb," which of us are "odd?" How long to we have to be around before you accept us as genuine? How often do we have to post?
You obviously have a crystal ball at your disposal.
Are you willing to share it? I could use it at the track, next week.Activist (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluestategirl:@Crrl333:Got these two addresses wrong. Sorry about that: Activist (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: Thank you Activist for keeping up the good fight here. I plead guilty of poor editing skills, particularly in talk, because I only edit occasionally and have only once before posted in a discussion about an article. I believe I was accused of being 'canvassed' above which I was not. I came to Wikipedia to learn about Mr Casanova, was glad to find the article, and tried at least in a small way to improve it. My feelings on the proposal to delete is to suspect that some are overly tidy, and also that there are some with political motivations behind wanting to delete the page. The idea of an article being deleted out of political motivation is frightening to me. I am politically motivated to keep the page, I support Mr Canova's candidacy, but to present information out of political motivation seems to me the lesser of two evils compared with disappearing information out of political motivation. PS If I'm to be discounted for editing too infrequently can we apply a discount for people who edit too much? WillMorganSeattle (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluestategirl:@Crrl333:@WillMorganSeattle:@Ymblanter:@Bluestategirl:@Montoya44:@MrWooHoo: Well, thank you for weighing in, Will. I hope the we're able to somehow prevail over the determined good faith effort of Bearcat to delete this article. He'd be with us right now, but he's busy doing tens of thousands of incredibly important Hotcat edits to articles for notable people such as Makoto Yasumura, where he changed the listing from Category:voice actors to Category:Japanese male voice actors, an edification and elucidation that helps us all to truly grasp the significance of that monumental moment in cinematic history. You'll remember Makoto, of course. It was he who joined to deliver the unforgettable "Evil Concerto" duet performance as either Oingo or Boingo in the anime episode 27 of 48 of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders. There is a small problem with that change, however, as there is no reliable source in Yasumura's article to establish whether or not the actor is either male or Japanese. The song was performed twice more in episodes 36 and 37, but alas, Makoto was not recast in the role he made so memorable. Activist (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'delete Even ignoring the dubious notability of this candidate, WP:TNT surely applies to this campaign flier. But he isn't notable either as an academic or as a politician. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:NPOL or the GNG. Respected academic who is in a decidedly not-ordinary Congressional primary race. It has already gotten substantial national attention, from outlets like The New Republic, Newsweek, Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept, etc. Enough to be able to write a substantial article on him, and to make this a clear keep. As WP:POLOUTCOMES puts it, he has " . . received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected . . ." He may qualify under WP:PROF (I came across this as I was about to cite his work at the ref desk). His gscholar h-index is 10 or 11, and his advising Sanders may satisfy Criterion 7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.John Z (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canova is particularly noteworthy since, though he teaches law and finance, his influence soars far beyond those two academic disciplines, into immigration and labor issues, public and economic policy, political and popular reform movements, and has drawn the attention of noteworthy scholars working in many countries and languages. The encyclopedic Who's Who in Economics refers to a pair of papers he co-authored, the first being: When Government Helped: Learning from the Successes and Failures of the New Deal, a compendium of the analyses of six cutting edge thinkers, edited by Sheila Collins and Gertrude Goldberg, from Oxford University Press (2014). Canova's brief bio, the longest in that book forward notes: "Timothy A. Canova is a Professor of Law and Public Finance at the Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center in Florida. His work, which crosses the disciplines of law, public finance, and economic history, has been published in numerous articles and book chapters, including academic journals from Harvard, Georgetown, Minnesota and University of California. Canova has held high academic and administrative posts at the University of New Mexico and Chapman University. In 2011, he was appointed by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to serve on a blue-ribbon advisory panel on reforming the Federal Reserve. Prior to teaching, he served as a legislative assistant to the late U.S. Senator Paul E. Tsongas and practiced law in New York City with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon." From the abstract of the second paper at that source, Keynesian Comparative Economics, by Canova, Richard P. Holt, Robert N. Horn, and Barkley and Marina V. Rosser, published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2003, vol. 62, issue 3. (T)he authors of this article review the late E. Lynn Turgeon's contributions to economics, including his studies of the Soviet economy, use of qualitative and demographic analyses, his Keynesian critique of U.S. economic performance, and his critique of international financial markets. Turgeon's comparative approach led to unique insights about the challenges that confronted planned economies, including the differential impact of military spending on the demand-constrained economy of the United States and the supply-constrained economy of the Soviet Union. His study of the Soviet and planned economies also informed his analysis of the U.S. economy and international adjustment mechanisms. Canova's "Selected Works" page at a single distributor, BePress, lists 20 additional articles he authored, mostly in law journals, and another he co-authored, between 1990 and 2013.Selected Works of Timothy A. Canova, Bepress. Activist (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:CSD#G11, unless completely rewritten. He probably passes WP:PROF for his academic positions. But that's not what this thinly-disguised campaign flyer is about; he does not yet pass WP:NPOL so an article centered on his political activity and positions is inappropriate here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess I volunteer to do some needed cleanup. But some WP:NPOL arguments here & elsewhere are logically defective. They seem not to be based on anything that guideline actually says, but read things into it that are not there: In effect that candidacy (or lesser offices) works against notability. That if there is reliable source coverage that would have decisively proven notability in any other context, the fact that it was coverage related to political candidacy makes it inadequate to prove notability; That proof of notability outside of or prior to the candidacy or non-notable office is required. The guideline does not say that. In this example, although many might judge him notable for other reasons, the substantial coverage of him (& the race) in major, national sources make satisfaction of WP:NPOL (& WP:POLOUTCOMES) as written completely unambiguous.John Z (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BASIC's "significant coverage" requirement reinforced by its coming close to qualifying for speedy deletion under WP:G11 (promotional material). It's not germane to my vote, but I'm dismayed at the level of obvious meatpuppetry and over-the-top bludgeoning going on in this discussion.  Rebbing  04:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (See below.)[reply]
    • @Rebbing: I'm similarly dismayed at your accusation of obviousmeatpuppetry. I came upon this article and the AfD nomination because I was wondering who might take on such a formidable fundraiser in a primary. Because of her proclivity for promoting contributors' agendas, I'm not a great fan of Wasserman Schultz, but that's not what motivated me. Bearcat had made some legitimate criticisms about the article in his (?) original nomination for deletion. So I read a bit more about the subject of the article and began to address Bearcats' concerns in an effort to improve the article, as we're expected to do as responsible editors, assuming we have the time to devote to it. That didn't seem to affect Bearcat's agenda at all. As his original concerns were thoroughly addressed he trotted out new ones, and repeatedly ignored requests to delete those obsolescent ones (i.e., about the original valueless Reddit cites) from his original AfD request, as if they still pertained, though they were resolved weeks ago. Not a single one of the editors who have supported deletion has made any attempt whatsoever to improve the article, and some simply carped on about it. So then, most recently, insulting questions and inferences of supposed conspiracies have been raised about the integrity of those long term editors who have opposed deletion. Somewhat exasperated, at this point, I addressed those concerns, and began to indulge in a bit of satire, which I thought was a legitimate response to what I still feel are the weak criticisms and the unfounded accusations that had been made. Now you've repeated those accusations against other editors in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. I'm not suggesting that you should change your vote, but I would hope you possess the professionalism to withdraw those baseless charges and the decency to apologize, perhaps. Activist (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the part where I said that I am dismayed by the over-the-top bludgeoning happening here. What you're doing—writing walls of text to those who disagree with your desired outcome—is inappropriate, but your sarcasm towards and mockery of the nominator and relisting administrator is beyond the pale.
The evidence for my accusation of bludgeoning is your conduct in this very thread, including the reply above; my evidence for meatpuppetry is the unbelievably large number of editors for whom this is their first rodeo (cf. WP:DUCK). Please note that meatpuppetry is not the the same as sockpuppetry: I'm not suggesting that the suspect accounts aren't real, independent individuals (so your long-winded analysis of each editors' contributions is totally irrelevant); I'm simply pointing out that it appears they've been brought here through something other than chance or involvement with the article. I don't owe you an apology for expressing my dismay at what's transpired in this discussion (observe how my "charge" was a general comment on behavior that didn't name names). If you're going to continue in the same tenor, I would advise you against replying further: your exchange above with Bearcat about sources was a perfect performance of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and there's no need for an encore.
Please note that it's not custom to edit one's nomination in light of changing content (as you requested); AfDs frequently involve moving targets; changes are reflected in the discussion. In this case, it's a little hard to see: you've buried the discussion with your walls of text. Also, using {{ping}} is not necessary or conventional in most Wikipedia discussions, XfDs included, as it's assumed that participants are watching the page.  Rebbing  06:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After mulling this over and reexamining the available coverage, I believe the subject likely falls on the fair side of notability. Additionally, the concerns underlying the notability requirement are satisfied here: there's enough material to write a full and balanced article that draws from multiple independent sources, and there appears to be enough interest in the article that the neutrality problems (which aren't that bad) will be hammered out.
I also withdraw my remarks about this discussion. I failed to assume good faith: Activist's comments, while a breach of decorum, reflect an earnest, if inexperienced, attempt to defend the article on the merits; the recommendations from AfD newcomers can be explained by happenstance as easily as by off-site canvassing. (I had an Wikipedia account for six years before I did more than correct small errors.) I apologize for needlessly casting aspersions and for muddying an already contentious deletion discussion.  Rebbing  03:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your gracious apology. I admit that I am quite inexperienced regarding the AfD process, though not editing in general. I also greatly appreciate your efforts to improve the article, and your overall considerable contributions to Wikipedia, Rebbing. Activist (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page has references, and I think it can expand. There are a few citations outstanding, so there is room for reciting and growth. Normally, I'm a deletionist; I think all stubs should be removed, since they lack information... This page has the fluff and relevance. I've seen him in the media, so he has notoriety. Personally, I'll vote keep, but with limitation. The article still needs expansion, especially in the reference department. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now and Draft if needed as the article simply needs additional work and is currently not convincing of keeping at mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Canova&oldid=1077951660"