Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Canova

Tim Canova

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose deletion. The subject qualifies as notable per multiple journalist written news articles: google news search for Tim Canova — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillMorganSeattle (talk • contribs) 01:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Source material relating to Wasserman Schultz's factual role in engineering the Clinton candidacy should be an available wiki resource — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya44 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

That's a press release from a political campaign, not media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)