Deletion of Tim Canova

Comment: Even ignoring the dubious notability of this candidate,  surely applies to this campaign flier. But he isn't notable either as an academic or as a politician
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per  and #G11, unless completely rewritten. He probably passes  for his academic positions. But that's not what this thinly-disguised campaign flyer is about; he does not yet pass  so an article centered on his political activity and positions is inappropriate here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:CSD||WP:PROF||WP:NPOL)

Comment: Satisfies  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  puts it, he has " . . received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected . . ."  He may qualify under  (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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:PROF)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: I guess I volunteer to do some needed cleanup. But some  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  (& ) ''as written'' completely unambiguous
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:NPOL||WP:POLOUTCOMES)

Comment: as per .  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  barrier: "can still be notable if they meet the |primary notability criterion of significant coverage in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent, Wikipedia:Reliable sources|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'' https://newrepublic.com/article/127500/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-challenger-chance, or this, http://observer.com/2016/02/why-debbie-wasserman-schultz-wont-make-it-to-congress-next-year/, articles, that is, that are about the race, fall under  and do not carry Canova past 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:N||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:N)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WHYN)