Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (3rd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There are obviously a lot of editorial issues to discuss on the talk page of the article going forward, but there is no consensus to delete the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Proposing deletion per NPOV and VERIFIABILITY. Bernie Sanders is the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is the only person in the world for whom this is the case. This article seems to have been started as a POVFORK arguing that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is basically a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable fact. Some of this content may be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed (see the talk page for more on that). WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Stay on topic. This is not a WP:FORUM to debate the subject of the article. Be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - MSM & the DNC are opposed to Sanders' winning the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strike as this is was neither a correctly classified !vote nor a relevant argument.Jahaza (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the same source (WP:TALK) that prohibits striking another's comment (except as provided) also prohibits removing others' comments.Jahaza (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, Bbb23 was right. I deleted my vote. --WMSR (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What's all the commotion? I watch independent news everyday & the MSM bias against Sanders, is spotted & pointed out. My reason for 'keeping' this article is valid. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , they are talking about this Special:Diff/937894263 WMSR shouldn't vote when he/she is the nominator. I agree, the media bias against Sanders controversy is notable itself. It has even got its own "Bernie blackout".-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that my 21:31 post was unstuck, btw. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an AfD. What does "oppose" mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch :) GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment -- as the principal author (now), I should probably avoid voting "snow keep" :) Many people have worked on it. Here is Naked Wikipedia's automatic analysis of the page's sourcing & concepts. (The page appears to have broken the css!) ^^ -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this is third nomination (but it was a different title), the nomination title must be changed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the content, merge some of the WP:DUE content with (i) Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election (ii) the main Bernie Sanders article, (iii) Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and (iv) Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. The article was created as POVFORK to promote the Sanders supporter POV that the media is biased against Sanders. During every presidential campaign, there are accusations (which are widely reported in RS that this-or-that candidate was unfairly treated by the media). During 2016 alone, candidates such as Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich all made similar claims and RS reported on those claims. it's neither feasible nor reasonable to create a separate Wikipedia article for every major candidate who claims that the media are against them. Most of the article is a coatrack of accusations in low-quality RS or in op-ed pages. The academic analyses in the article are about media coverage in general during the 2016 election, and cover how the media covered all candidates (not just Sanders), so they do not indicate that this page is any more notable than a similar page for Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Trump, Kasich, Jeb Bush etc. Furthermore, what makes this POVFORK egregious is that academic analyses do not substantiate that the media was biased against Sanders:
 * (1) Sanders received the most positive coverage of any candidate in the 2016 election whereas his main Democratic opponent (Clinton) received the most negative coverage. Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.
 * (2) While Sanders received less media coverage than Clinton, his coverage was "strongly correlated" with his standing in the polls, and candidates who poll lower get less media coverage. Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.
 * (3) Per peer-reviewed research, Sanders' media coverage exceeded his standing in the polls during 2015, and the media exaggerated how close the Democratic race was from March 2016 onwards. Sources: A) John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107. B) Bitecofer, Rachel (2018). "The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election". Palgrave: 36–38, 48. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (1) is false. Sanders had fewer positive stories written about him than Clinton or Trump at all times during the campaign, according to both Brandwatch & Media Tense (the sources for Sides & Shorenstein)
 * (2) is meaningless. Correlated how?  Is this correlation relevant in the Democratic race? If so, how?  Was Clinton's coverage strongly correlated with her standing in the polls, or did it fluctuate with the various media moments?
 * (3) Bitecofer is not a good reference for this claim, which again does not tell the whole media/DNC/super-delegate story. She cites Brock's Blue Nation Review in her research (and not to make fun of it) that's your Kelley ref) .  Also Media Tense's data as studied at Harvard by Mr. Patterson directly and resoundingly contradict both quantitatively and qualitatively the idea that the press outlets studied were primarily interested in pushing Sanders in the Democratic race from March 2016.
 * -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Shorenstein Center report for 2015: "Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic." Shorenstein Center report for 2016: "Sanders’ coverage during the opening stage of the primaries was the most positive of any candidate... Sanders’ coverage during the Super Tuesday period, as was true of earlier stages, was the most favorable of any candidate... The middle stage of the primaries was the first time in the campaign where a candidate other than Sanders got the most favorable coverage." John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press: "Sanders’s appeal... depended on extensive and often positive media coverage." + "In 2015, Sanders benefited from increas- ing news coverage that was more positive than Clinton received... This increasing and increasingly positive coverage helped give Sanders a national profile... The tone of news coverage continued to favor Sanders for the rest of the primary." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh for the love of marshmallows would you knock it off. The point is part II.  Everyone who works on this page knows that.  "Sanders’ coverage was particularly sparse. [...] In terms of the volume of media coverage, the Democratic race was one sided" (source) Read the 1st source in the entry and get back with me on the Shorenstein Center.  I suppose a byproduct of deletion is that the talk page would be deleted.  I get it.  But that's not a reason to delete an encyclopedia entry. And quit comparing meaningless decontextualized percentages when you should be comparing numbers of stories for comparisons of superiority.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep it is a notable, controversial issue that is widely covered in reliable sources. Definitely should have its own article. Content disputes and I just dont like it are not reasons for deletions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove Article is a vehicle for inclusion of speculative information, rather than a record of a notable event. It's active edit history is indicative of the controversy of the topic, not actual notability. Slywriter (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please give a textual example of this speculative information. That's easy to say... let's see some text...--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In February 2019, Shane Ryan (Paste Magazine) reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch, the Washington Post had published four opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan described the common themes in these columns as a "manufactured narrative" that Sanders' time had—as one of the columnists put it—"come and gone". - speculation into why WaPo wrote articles
 * Entire politico section relies on Pro-Sanders quotes to support a speculative anti-Semitism claim
 * Katie Halper used to speculate on motives of NYT writer
 * Shakir, Sanders' Campaign Manager used as a source against CNN
 * Sanders own musings about WaPo used to indicate WaPo bias
 * WaPo vs Rolling Stone to create perception that WaPo maliciously declares his statement false
 * The use of In These Times to use quantity of coverage as a metric to prove media doesn't cover Sanders. Perhaps he just didn't say anything new or notable
 * 2 Journalist quotes to validate media has a centrist bias
 * The entire CNN debate section which ends with an Anti Semitism claim to bolster it's impact.
 * All references above are the 2020 section of the article. 2016 can be summed up as "Nobody likes that Trump sucked the air out of the room"
 * Slywriter (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true I haven't worked as much on the stuff from 2020, you can see the difference in the prose between the two sections, as I tend to be less prolix, in general. I responded to your comments when you wrote them and now that I've had a moment I've made two or three changes because of them.  Let me know if you consider these improvements (see the grayed items and my most recent edit to the article).
 * This is quoted material from the WaPo about which there was a discussion that took place on the TP. A median solution between the two proposals was found after someone (will check who) deleted it during the RfC (which is usually considered a no-no).
 * The guy from JTA is pro-Sanders? I think you should read that again.  (I've removed the quote from AOC, which I did not add, though I left it as the title of the tweet-ref)  The guy from JTA mentions the tweet, unless I'm mistaken.
 * Katie Halper provides rather a lot of evidence.
 * Shakir is being cited as to what he would like to discuss other than Trump's tweets: he answers "regulatory capture".  Your description of that section is just a tiny bit parodic.
 * Rather a lot of newspaper ink was spilled over this.
 * I've read the WaPo article which published the APJH's response, which was not flattering. When two medical doctors at Harvard accuse the WaPo fact-checker of lying I suppose he could be telling the truth... will fix up the ref, I hadn't read that article yet. I think I've read the RS one, but again, I've worked mostly on 2016.  Your summary is reductive.
 * They said Sanders wasn't covered. Media coverage of Bernie Sanders is the title of the page. Quantity of coverage as you know was converted into as mega-Trump-bucks worth of free advertising equivalents in the secondary lit.  That said I've shortened the section on Grim covering that the following month.
 * Two journalists (including the founding editor of Politico) wrote that they thought it did
 * yeah, I'm not a big fan of that either boldly removed for you, though I'm not 100% convinced this MSNBC story should stay out or that Greenwald is wrong.
 * Not really. There's Brock.  There's the WaPo.  There's the DNC (the debates & media coverage are not well covered yet at all) There's the TV networks (AZ).  There's the Shorenstein Study, which has been widely cited as confirming a huge statistical bias against issues (& a negative slant on Sanders from March 15th for the little press Media Tenor found that he got...)


 * -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge some of the content following the excellent argument made by User:Snooganssnoogans. JamieWhat (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:COATRACK and WP:DUE. Move usable/relevant information to Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign, and Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. KidAd (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The issue of how Sanders is covered in the media is pivotal, heavily covered and discussed, blatantly notable, and worthy of an article. This looks like another attempt to minimize the existence of something some editors seem to have an interest in minimizing. With the unquestionable notability of the subject combined with the fact that this is a repeated nomination after multiple failed ones, deletion seems incredibly petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanespotterA320 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above comment. To illustrate how notable this controversy of media coverage of Bernie Sanders search "Bernie blackout". I have been in deletion discussions many times, never that I saw content disputes being a valid reason for deletion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep entry as is with no deletion of content not agreed upon between the editors in its Talk Page. How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner with Biden. In addition, many RS's have covered the subject; why should Wikipedia abstain from it when this website should be but a mirror of how reliable sources approach a given subject? Deleting this entry is true WP:COATRACK. Rafe87 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that reliable sources haven't really covered the subject. They have published opinions about it. The article is not about reactions to media coverage of Sanders, yet that's all that seems to be present. There is very little verifiable factual information about the subject. Furthermore, saying that Sanders is becoming a frontrunner is not only WP:CRYSTALBALL, but largely irrelevant. Biden does not have a comparable page. I also don't understand how deleting the article is true WP:COATRACK, since an article can't be a coat rack if it doesn't exist. --WMSR (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what CRYSTALBALL are you talking about. The content is discussed in the media extensively. The media coverage of Bernie has been widely called "Bernie Blackout" and sources are discussing this. Content disputes are not reasons for deletions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am talking about How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner with Biden (emphasis mine). Nowhere did I say that content disputes were reasons for deletion, but the actual reasons that I gave in the nomination are. Media sources discussing a topic is much different than sources reporting on it. There are very few, if any, sources in this article with concrete facts; as it stands now, most of the article is quoted or summarized opinions of pundits. There are not enough reliable sources with verifiable facts pertaining to the subject to prove notability. I understand that it's tempting to give in to confirmation bias, but at the end of the day, a thousand op-eds alleging mistreatment of Sanders by the media does not an article make. --WMSR (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Starting another AFD for an article that just had one ending the month before is a waste of time. There are ample references in the article about this.  Reliable sources give significant coverage to the media coverage of him.   D r e a m Focus  02:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the third nomination. After this get closed there will be no more nominations.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The second nomination was closed for procedural reasons by the proposer with no comments or votes. --WMSR (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and generalize We're observing a philosophical clash between two divergent journalistic philosophies. One side wants to uphold an ideal of journalists as scrupulously impartial judges of political ideas, as a fourth branch of government.  The other side often observes many or most media outlets as rags, as dirty bird sheets in serious thrall to some wealthy owner's perverse political axe to grind or to their big advertisers' money.  Paul Klinkman (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh boy...WP:TIAC...WP:FRINGE KidAd (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I just want to link this story from the WaPo that says how the DNC leaks exposed the anti-Sanders democrats who worked to smear him and his campaign . I believe this is relevant especially for those who deny that there is a conspiracy. Open in chrome incognito if you want to pass the paywall.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep – What is the point of going through a giant AfD if you're just gonna ignore it and try to blow up the article again a month later? Master of Time   ( talk ) 04:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I cast a vote for cutting this down by 2/3s? The subject is worthwhile but the article length is excessive and it's only going to get longer and longer as we move into 2020 as more and more coverage gets added. I know that AfD options are Keep, Delete, Merge or Redirect but jeez, this is just a completely unwieldy article but redeemable if it was just massively cut down in size. Count this as a Comment then. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most of the arguments presented as reasons for deleting this article are in fact reasons to keep it.
 * Media bias can never be proven because it requires mind reading? Good. The article should continue to describe media coverage and meta-analyses of this coverage and let the reader decide if those alleging bias are correct.
 * You can find academic sources arguing that Sanders was covered fairly? Good. They should be added to the article to show that people on both sides of the debate consider the topic notable.
 * You think negative media mentions of other candidates are just as systemic (which I doubt) as they are with Sanders? Good. Keep this article to serve as a guide for writing your Media coverage of Joe Biden article.
 * In case anyone needs a reminder, let me point out that just since the last AfD, a CNN host has framed two debate questions from Warren's point of view and an MSNBC host has reached out to a pseudoscience purveyor who called Sanders a liar. Is anyone going to tell me that these things were not covered in RS sources or that they represent acceptable media conduct? Connor Behan (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete – Most discussion of media coverage of Bernie Sanders are opinions about singular events, such as polls, policy opinions, and the "16 stories about Bernie Sanders over a 16-hour period by the Washington Post" (which was based on performance from a single debate). The vast majority of large studies on the matter, which focused on Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election as a whole, have confirmed that there is no significant, special bias for or against Sanders.  For instance, from the article referencing a study covering the entire 2016 election, "Patterson said that Sanders did better [in terms of media coverage] than most 'candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following.'"  It's better, but not significantly better to the point where it's an extreme outlier. Ylevental (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That quotation almost sounds like it's making Bernie's point for him. If the media were consistent, a candidate with lots of money, lots of organization and a huge following should do better than all of the candidates who lack those three qualities, not just most of them. Connor Behan (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As the peer-reviewed research shows, the coverage that Sanders received during his early candidacy far exceeded his support in the polls. Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that media coverage was greater, but it was not significantly greater compared to other candidates in his situation. Ylevental (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "The vast majority of large studies on the matter..." -- sounds like the topic is notable! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Those studies are all about Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election, of which Sanders is one of many candidates. None of the studies are specifically about media coverage of Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed to clarify Ylevental (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Some reliable sources that support notability of the subject:
 * And lots and lots of other sources discussing this highly controversial subject. Content disputes are not valid arguments for deletion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, but all those sources use the term "Bernie Blackout", which doesn't focus on media coverage as a whole. Maybe an article about the "Bernie Blackout" could be created, describing the phenomenon as a term coined by Sanders supporters describing their view on Sanders and the media, along with others' responses to that phenomenon.  It would be very different from this article however, as the "blackout" is far more narrow in scope, so I'm sticking with deletion. Ylevental (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The RSs are discussing the media coverage of Bernie Sanders. The subject of media coverage of Bernie Sanders is obviously notable and controversial.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All major 2016 candidates have RS coverage of claims regarding media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant content but otherwise delete To group all the singular events as to give the appearance of a singular bias against Sanders is flat out synthesis and original research, considering that (as Snooganssnoogans is pointing out, there is similar bias for all candidates in these last two elections but we aren't giving wholly separate articles to the other candidates). You need a fair number of sources that cover the state of journalism to assert that there was a media bias against Sanders to support this to get past the OR issue. Some of the individual events do merit inclusion in the separate Sanders campaign articles or similar cases, but this as standalone is wholly improper for WP to be making the claim. --M asem (t) 20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sanders got 78% of the popular votes that Clinton got, but only 2/3 of the media coverage in the drastically undercovered Democratic primary.  This has been widely covered by both major mainstream press actors (editor of the Nation for example), the Berkman Klein Center, which notes the WaPo & NYTimes had massive social media retweeting from the Clinton camp, whereas different media outlets were more amply echoed in Sanders' circles.    Everyone should take a step back and realize that the debate is not about whether there was media bias or not, but whether the overwhelming majority of 17 people who voted to rename the page "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" were not onto something more fundamental.  My personal choice at that time was "Media coverage of Democratic primaries 2000-2020".  I went with the flow though, and this is the repayment I get for the hard work. Also it is worth noting that Snoogans recent pov creation (17 Jan) cites Hillary Clinton's memoir, whereas he deleted Jeff Weaver's book-length study of media coverage and the election, because he did not like the part about David Brock's media manipulation. (diff)
 * Further directions for the page include, Sanders use of local access media in Vermont, his radio show, his social media machinery... -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 78% of popular vote? Think we need to be writing a different article if that was true.Slywriter (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added "that Clinton got". The data is very clear as you can see.  This does not count the landslide victories in Washington, North Dakota & Maine (or Clinton's razor thin win in Iowa or her 5% spread in NV).  21:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 78% vote and 66% coverage are not that far apart. Many people knew about Bernie Sanders, but still willingly chose to vote for Clinton. Ylevental (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Not an AFD argument. WP:N (85 references), WP:V (all references are verifiable for their claims), are both unquestionably met.  WP:NPOV is met because multiple points of view are represented and nothing prevents further POV being added.  WP:OSE is not a valid argument in an AFD.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of those refs are either self-identified "progressive" outlets or editorials. For that reason, they mostly fail verifiability. Sure, we can verify that x pundit said y, but at the end of the day, if we remove editorials, there is barely an article left. And saying that nothing prevents further POV being added is problematic; we are not here to present an argument to moderation. We are here to present facts, and facts are not sufficiently present in this article. --WMSR (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I get it. You want to say, now, that facts matter. I'm afraid that some folks have been deleting those cold hard facts you like so much and you have been helping them to do so:


 * Elsewhere, you argue that Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuits against google and against Clinton should be seen as media coverage tactics (which, of course, I agree with), but here you don't see it the same way. And then you complain there aren't enough facts. I will dig up the CTR's deleted links to their suits and add them to the bibliography on the talk page.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 01:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 03:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the content of the article. It is not about me. The two situations are not analogous, and the source you mention is unfit for the article. Of course campaigns say negative things about other candidates. That isn't surprising or notable, and it has little to do with media coverage of Sanders and more to do with coverage of Brock. Pushing a conspiracy theory about David Brock is not going to improve this article. --WMSR (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 🐟 Now, I see you are accusing Alex Seitz-Wald, MSNBC (and also Jeff Weaver, who tells the same story) of "pushing a conspiracy theory"  go wmsr, go.  wait, isn't that a BLP violation? --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 03:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I made no such accusation. Stop casting aspersions. This discussion is about the article, not about me. --WMSR (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 🐟 Saying someone is "pushing a conspiracy theory" -- as you did -- by providing sources that say exactly what they are described as saying is either a BLP violation or a personal attack (or, more likely, both). You do what you want with your credibility. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 03:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete every candidate receives negative press and usually has valid complaints about the media. Some of the complaints also seem to be rife with cherrypicking to fit a narrative. AaronY (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete It becomes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH when an editor chooses which coverage fits the hypotheses. Wm335td (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:WEIGHT. Not a POV fork; for whatever reason (perhaps because Sanders identifies as a socialist), the nature of his coverage in US media differs from that of the other Democratic candidates.  Mini  apolis  23:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some say that Bernie Sanders is still a definitive capitalist, that's why I think this controversy is very unlikely. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/upshot/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-capitalist.html and https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/real-socialists-left-bernie/596890/ Ylevental (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Take this seriously. I am a firm inclusionist.  I have spent my wikipedia career protecting articles, trying to keep censorship from wikipedia.  This might be my fourth Delete ivote ever and I sadly make this because this article is a lost cause.


 * This originally was titled Media bias against Bernie Sanders. It was a well sourced discussion of the Bernie Blackout, a phenomenon often discussed amongst “Progressive” media for most of the last four years (including while it was happening).  The discussions spend most of their time talking about the subtle techniques being employed to turn whatever coverage that does exist into dismissive instructions to ignore Bernie Sanders and consider who else should displace him.  They discuss the ways thoughtful, credible journalists have been guided into perpetuating this poor coverage.  You have a large segment of the American population that understand this concept clearly.  Because conventional media is perpetrating this mis-reporting, it also backs up its reporting by self-generated, self regulation.  We’re doing a good job.  See, we just told you we are doing a good job, so now its a fact.  Since that is happening in what are considered by wikipedia to be reliable sources, the reporting of the bias has had to happen outside that structure in what is referred to as “new media.”  This blackout itself has caused millions of people to flock to getting their news and information from this new media because they cannot get it from conventional media.  Ten thousand people do not show up at a Bernie rally because it was in the newspaper or on local TV, they get that news from new media sources.  Wikipedia must adapt its standards to account for “new media” or it will become a party to this mis-reporting.


 * Since its creation, this article has been descended upon by what I firmly believe to be political operatives, probably paid operatives and certainly sent by the same forces that caused the Bernie blackout across major media in the first place. Since they have taken over the article, they have changed the title, then reversed the content of the article to promote the opposing message.  In other words, they have gone beyond censoring the original content, the have reversed the spin and are presenting one sided information to guide the public perception away from learning about the phenomenon.  Misinformation.


 * My first contribution to the article, the first outside editor after the creator, was to include the well known elemental beginning of the phenomenon:


 * MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was angrily told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders”. And I noted that Shultz was terminated by MSNBC 45 days later, which additional sources also report Shultz attributed directly to that disagreement.  That content was removed.  The wikilawyering  has made its source, a direct quote from the now deceased Shultz himself, to be considered non-reliable source because Shultz found his next employment working for the American version of RT (TV network) so presumably after 30 plus years of credible American broadcasting from both sides of the aisle, now he was a foreign agent and his own words cannot be trusted.  This is the addled logic that now has subjugated this entire article.


 * Now, instead, we have phrases like: Sanders was not the subject of a "media blackout," as he had just reached a 30 percent share of coverage.  They are using wikipedia’s voice to tell us not to believe our lying eyes.  Whenever any editor tries to insert any content that goes opposite to their counter-narrative, one of them swoops in and removes that content.  They are actively protecting this presentation of misinformation.


 * This is a terrible trend for our worldwide information source. These same operatives are descending on every article related to “progressive” media and particularly progressive political candidates.  They are removing sourced content to hide information and taking aggressive measures to keep it hidden.  These are evolutions of "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”


 * If these articles can get hacked, if we as the wikipedia community let them, the entire credibility of wikipedia will come into question. This is a much bigger problem than just this article that wikipedia will have to deal with, or suffer the consequences of losing its position as the world’s leading information source.  When people find wikipedia reporting information diametrically opposed to what they know and experience, they will leave.  Unfortunately for now, this article is a lost cause and should be deleted.


 * I will firmly argue we should create a proper article describing the Bernie Blackout, but I do not know how we can protect it from immediately being seized by these same forces and also turned into propaganda. Trackinfo (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * For info the sentence about the Bernie Blackout said Claire Malone of FiveThirtyEight rejected that Sanders was the subject of a "media blackout," saying that he received sizable and rising article coverage. when it was added on 31 December 2019 by Snooganssnoogans. In an effort to keep him from raising hell, but still with the idea of correcting the misrepresentation of Malone's views, I changed that to the current text on 3 January 2020, adding a direct citation to the quote tag from Claire Malone: "And now he's sort of edged up into 30% of coverage. And people have been searching Bernie quite a bit, in the low 50-60 range, and they kind of plateaued into the following winter. So, maybe he's not getting super duper coverage, but he's not not there." I agree that the text as it was added on 31 December 2019 did not respect the spirit of what Claire Malone said in the interview.  This is not unusual and fighting it often leads to conflict, cf. this edit.  Since 3 January you've had a lot of time to fix that...  (incidentally:  I'm not a political operative) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 11:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. I say we simply just write a new article titled Bernie blackout and use some of the original material wrote. The current version of the article is ridiculous and has been captured by establishment hawks. Censorship is very real in this situation, and the only way to fight it is to write an article that actual covers the topic of the Bernie blackout. This article does not do that anymore. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but IMO those are not reasons to delete. To rename, sure. To protect or semi-protect, sure. To delete, no way. If the topic is article worthy as you suggest it is, then delete is simply the wrong result. WP shouldn't negotiate with (for lack of a better word) media terrorists. We already have WP:DR to deal with those issues. To capitulate to vandalism is not encyclopedic. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 00:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WMSR, Snooganssnoogans, KidAd, Trackinfo, and others. Some material about media bias for and against Sanders is warranted in the campaign articles, but this one has been seized upon for WP:ADVOCACY. I tried to help fix it several weeks ago, but there are too many zealous editors willing to ignore our content policies for the article not to remain a WP:COATRACK for WP:PROPAGANDA. - MrX 🖋 18:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – Gathering information about independent events and tying them together in an article to present a conclusion in the mind of the reader is WP:SYNTH (at best). Some of the text can be merged into relevant articles. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This can be covered in the articles Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign (where it can probably can be done in a few short sentences, as opposed to this fork article, which is an overwhelming wall of text). I don't see any significant, in-depth coverage of media coverage as a concept separate or apart from the Senator's presidential campaigns. I have to say that there is a very strong feeling of recentism about an article with a concept like this. Our encyclopedia should be timely and cover topics of current interest, but it should not be dominated by up-to-the-minute, blow-by-blow, back-and-forth, claims-and-counterclaims of the campaign horserace. Neutralitytalk 20:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to say that there is a very strong feeling of recentism. Let's see... first ref = 2005, more than half of the text is about 2016.  Fascinating to see everyone coming to play! Hi, "neutrality". 77/83 references are over a month old.  A clear majority are over a year old.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Point of information: The article was created by User:Azcolvin429 on November 30, 2019 after he had been working on it in his sandbox.  When he inserted links to the new article that day, it started showing up in my watchlist and I first contributed about an hour later.  It describes events that have a timeline starting in 2015, though there is a historical phenomenon existing as long as history itself.  Anyone with views that do not match the establishment will come under some form of attack from the establishment.  America's pioneers, my relatives and maybe yours, are among those victims of persecution.  Refer back to the quote. Trackinfo (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the vast majority of sources are news and commentary pieces relating to either the 2016 or 2020 election campaign: i.e., horse race. Neutralitytalk 21:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a highly notable, well-covered topic, backed by numerous reliable sources. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - WP:SYNTH: The article. The sourcing is weak at best and POV pushing is all over this article. Jdcomix (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is the sourcing "weak"? CompactSpacez (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep- A notable topic with plenty of sources. It has been well documented that the media treats Sanders differently than any other Democrat candidate.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep For the same reasons others have described, namely that this is a well-sourced article on a notable topic. I would also like to specifically respond to some arguments made in favour of deleting. The article is not "POV pushing". "POV pushing" is when minor, fringe or disreputed views are given undue weight (say, Vitamin C megadoses on an article about cancer treatments). However, that media bias against Sanders exists has been a significant point of mainstream discussion in both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, more so than any other candidate. A comparison I like to make is with the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. That has been called "POV pushing", but ultimately, despite numerous attempts to delete, it has been kept, simply because the analogy is so powerful, and has been such a significant point in the debate. The most important reason the article should be kept is, of course, because the Bernie Blackout is....real. You saw it with your own eyes in the last Democratic debate hosted by CNN. Is it not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to be writing about the truth, rather than trying to come up with reasons to suppress it? CompactSpacez (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some articles and opinion pieces referring to an alleged "Bernie Blackout", but there are no major studies that present evidence that there is significant media bias against Bernie Sanders. Ylevental (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not able to decide, but the article it self seems to be more in a format of Template:Cleanup-PR. Sorry there is no Wikipedia namespace article talking about the fact that the article is almost like a news.  If looked carefully, in many places the sentences start with a date, "On so and so month and year..." something like that.  It seems that the user only looked up the subject of this media coverage of Bernie Sanders on google or Bing news search, and tried to implement each article or statement as short with stating the date as the month and year the article was posted on the internet.  This is almost like WP:Copyedit, but not exactly, as the sources were inferenced and summarized.  For the statements that have multiple sources from reliable sources, those statements could be broadened to make the article look less like a news article.  However for sources that are unreliable and are overused, statements that rely just on those sources should be removed.  I do agree with those that stated the sources like "NPR", "Daily Beast", are being over used or may be unreliable.  However, there are other reliable sources like ABC, CNN,....


 * In regards to editors saying the articles are sounding too opinionated confuses me, since some of the reliable sources are were some of the statistics are coming from. I do not think a statistic from a reliable source can be considered opinionated, but i can be wrong.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An old saying is "stats don't lie, statisticians do." In this case, it's the question of what do those stats actually mean? For 2016, Trump was a bumbling fool and Hillary was under federal investigation. Bad news is always covered more than feel good stories. For 2020, He is old news. His tale is the same, so journalists write about other candidates. Slywriter (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not totally true, he still is in the campaign. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the person who wants to get political news about candidates, to find that political news.  If you remember when Bernie had a heart attack, he was all over the news.  News channels don't want to show news that won't give them much viewer rating points.  For example, if Micheal Bloomburg fell asleep in a classic music concert and on the same day Joe Biden got the flu, news channels and sources would write about Joe Bidden.  They would not write about Bloomburg falling asleep, that would just sound like dumb news.  Also the statement that "Bernie is old news", is an opinionated statement.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per CompactSpacez, Rusf10, Bloodofox, Ylevental and Master of Time. Coming back here only a month after the last attempt to delete this article is something I regard as ludicrous at best. Jusdafax (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, disregarding that the article should not have been nominated for deletion so soon after the last discussion was closed, the topic of the Media's coverage of Bernie Sanders has clearly been the subject of enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Whether the supposed bias in coverage is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion. And yes, the article is a mess in its current state, but AFD is not cleanup. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that AfD is not a proposal to cleanup, but editors who are making earnest attempts to do so are constantly rebuffed. --WMSR (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment to WMSR's reply to Devonian Wombat WMSR, can you explain rebuffed?  I have a feeling that when you are saying rebuffed, that you are referring to more stuff of things like Template:Cleanup-PR are being added, that still is not a reason for AfD.  Although, that is reason for an article to be discussed at Dispute resolution noticeboard or WP:RFC.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * During my time editing this page, I have tried to clean up the article and I have also placed issue banners. The banners have since been removed, and my attempts to remove content that does not belong have all faced serious resistance; most were reverted and several personal attacks were lobbed at me. I don't have the desire to edit-war content out of this article or continue to face abuse, and I doubt any other editor wants to either, nor should they. Basically, to say "this article just needs to be cleaned up" on the RfD and calling it a day ignores the true difficulty of actually completing that work. --WMSR (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * A quick fact-check shows that WMSR has added zero reliable sources to the article, has been criticized for edit warring on 13-14 January at AN/I (1RR page) and has removed about a dozen sources. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The criticism that you are referring to was not that much. On the other hand however, multiple people have actually told you multiple times on this AfD, that this is not a forum.  This is an AfD, where we discuss the article and the subject of the article, not the users themselves.  FYI, WMSR never stated in his reply to me that he had added references.  Cleanup does not always mean references.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) you are correct about WMSR at AN/I; I misread Bbb23's comment. 2) I will not reply to what is wrong in your post, but will add that the story about the interim chair of the DNC leaking information about the questions that would be asked at CNN townhalls to the Clinton campaign during the primary is missing from the entry. (Her contract with CNN was terminated 7 months later as a result.) [].  Feel free to participate on the page if you think you can help make the entry better.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking about Donna Brazile. She did this as a part of her job at the DNC, not the media. She was also a guest contributor at CNN and they terminated her when they heard about it. She is now a Fox contributor. I think it would be a very difficult case to make that this has anything to do with this article. O3000 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume it should be added in a section about DNC control over debates & townhalls. I've added a section to the talk page where you can add to the discussion. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: We already went through this and the decision was to rename. This was a mistake because it fundamentally changed the nature of the article and set it up to be nominated for deletion. The article was originally about the Bernie blackout/bias and the media coverage concerning it. Simply making it about media coverage is far too general and it opens the door to having an article about media coverage for any person on TV. I propose the article be renamed back to Media bias against Bernie Sanders or Bernie Blackout. This second deletion nom is absurd and uses the exact same arguments as before. It should’ve been closed by admin the moment it was nominated. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and Speedy keep. This relisting breaks the guidelines for relisting (WP:RELIST), specifically:
 * relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure
 * Also:
 * if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.
 * That criteria is not met.
 * Furthermore, given that this article has already recently been through this process, WP:SNOWBALL also applies. This aFd should be closed.
 * Aside from the speedy reasons, the plain keep argument would include that the lister claims the page violates WP:V but provides no examples of non-WP:V or non-WP:RS content or sourcing, never mind a predominance of it that would justify a deletion. Besides that, this exact argument has already been presented in the previous discussion, which was already resolved. Keith D. Tyler &para; 23:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RELIST does not apply to this situation. Relisting and renominating are entirely different processes. WP:SNOWBALL does not apply either, as the last AfD was closed with no consensus. --WMSR (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worse. It's an abuse of process. Death by a thousand cuts. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 00:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When this discussion ends with a non-delete outcome, the article will no doubt be nominated again. And again. And again. That has to be nipped in the bud. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 00:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep 3 nominations in 60 days is essentially trolling. The topic verifiably exists, citations are bountiful and on-point. Third Way Dems are upset over Sanders' populist message, but this isn't the way to go about disagreeing with it. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The article has become a coatrack for pro-sanders/anti-media talking points and any attempt to restore neutrality is eventually reverted. – Anne drew  17:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is true. Most of the studies in this article focus on elections as a whole. Ylevental (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - FWIW, over the last few days, DNC Chairman Tom Perez has nominated a slate of candidates for committees at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. All the candidates are anti-Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this related to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders? O3000 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. It relates to the bias against Sanders that has been present since 2015. Which is a good reason this article (or a new one) should be about the bias, not the media coverage.<i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i> • <i style="color: Green">Talk</i> 17:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - To those that that make the final decision that results from this AfD discussion, I have faith in your decision and reasoning. However, I have noticed that while most people who support keeping claim that they want an article title that focuses on media coverage in general, they insist in their explanations that the media is heavily biased against Sanders, when only a few opinion pieces claim this. Ylevental (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please recall that this article has already been taken over and owned, numerous sources have been sanitized and most of the content has been disappeared here. You may not see them presented in this article, but there are entire networks who regularly talk about the bias against Bernie Sanders in a variety of forms, then and now.  You can't depend on the content of this article to get a full story, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Trackinfo (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.