Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2019
Keep: The NPOV concerns seem to be about style ("soap-boxy") rather than content, and thus easily corrected. A neutral point of view presents facts in a disinterested way. That does not guarantee that all competitors will be supported equally by the facts. If one candidate has encountered disproportionate media censorship for their level of popular support, noting that fact does not count as lack of neutrality. What counts is whether claims are supported, and the content here is compelling.

Further, neutrality is not a perceived Overton-window-type middle-of-the-road, such that different competitors must receive equal support no matter their different histories and different treatments. Neutrality isn't about support of particular humans or positions, but of the facts. The style for this article needs to be polished, and the content kept and built on.

Thanks for the time reading this. Naturanaturans (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep
Deleting this page would only add to the media blackout in the mainstream media for Bernie Sanders. It's ridiculous, you can randomly sample mainstream outlets and you will see that they either negatively cover or pretend that Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign isn't happening. If you want a more indepth understanding of the context and numbers, Luke Savage does an excellent job here. I support Wikipedia with periodic donations because I believe in the openness of knowledge and information. Deleting this page, would be a bad move on their part, per my point of view. Sanwal Yousaf (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Keep the page. Masilvas2000 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia not a place of record? This article records the bias that is happening because of the lack of a public institution free of corporate control. Wikipedia is one of the public's few places where our words are heard. Suppressing this article would make it harder for public journalism to be heard. I am a current supporter of Wikipedia. Donnyv7 (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This page should be kept as it gathers in one place the coverage on a legitimate topic that does not get the coverage it merits by the mainstream media. As with any topic on this site, viewers are free to disagree with the conclusions or discount any or all cited sources. Isn't this what the democratization of information access should be about?Centavo01 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

While I agree the article could use some polish to make it fell more journalistic, it's meticulously well sourced and researched. Letting the Wikipedia community work on it rather than simply deleting it would be the correct response. Rsilvergun (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Let’s concede that the article has issues of tone (at the very least) that need to be addressed. Then, let’s recognize that this article serves an important function to counter the problematic effects of the overwhelming power held by multinational media conglomerates. When this article is whittled down to mere facts, it tracks an important historical fact of media bias against a political figure who opposes concentrated wealth and power. Regardless of one’s politics, there’s a strong socio-cultural need to document the moments when the power elite are exploitatively self-serving in their efforts to shape people’s subjectivities and voting tendencies. It doesn’t matter what any particular social body’s, or institution’s, organized or intended effects are. What’s clear is that the mainstream media—made up of workers and managers who graduate from elite universities—have repeatedly shown clear bias against Bernie Sanders. This article shows that, and there is a real social need to aggregate and present the evidence of this historical fact. If Wikipedia isn’t here in order to reveal the truth of the unfolding history of the present—especially as it profoundly affects our social lives—then what the hell is the point? Shaunzito (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this is marked for review and deletion is proof of the point detailed in the first place Leoncscott543 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Let’s concede that the article has issues of tone (at the very least) that need to be addressed. Then, let’s recognize that this article serves an important function to counter the problematic effects of the overwhelming power held by multinational media conglomerates. When this article is whittled down to mere facts, it tracks an important historical fact of media bias against a political figure who opposes concentrated wealth and power. Regardless of one’s politics, there’s a strong socio-cultural need to document the moments when the power elite are exploitatively self-serving in their efforts to shape people’s subjectivities and voting tendencies. It doesn’t matter what any particular social body’s, or institution’s, organized or intended effects are. What’s clear is that the mainstream media—made up of workers and managers who graduate from elite universities—have repeatedly shown clear bias against Bernie Sanders. This article shows that, and there is a real social need to aggregate and present the evidence of this historical fact. If Wikipedia isn’t here in order to reveal the truth of the unfolding history of the present—especially as it profoundly affects our social lives—then what the hell is the point? Shaunzito (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be polished, but it is documenting current events and is very well researched. Deleting it would only contribute to the media blackout that is undeniably happening. I'm not sure I want my money supporting an encyclopedia that suppresses information, so I'm going to wait until this is resolved before donating again. Meteloides (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

KEEP
Wikipedia is an independent media source that is referenced by millions worldwide to obtain facts. Wikipedia, therefore, has a responsibility to report facts and keep occurrences throughout history on record.

Evidence in support of a verifiable media-bias against Bernie Sanders by the largest media networks in America are highlighted not only in the Wikipedia article in question, but have also been pointed out by users in this discussion.

The facts are these:

-Bernie Sanders reached 4 million donors in the 2020 election cycle faster than any candidate in history, despite the fact there are almost 20 contenders in the primary this cycle. Media coverage (quantified by airtime) on Bernie has not been in any way proportional to this popularity when compared to other candidates' airtime.

-Huge swaths of individuals on various forums like Reddit are noticing this lack of proportionality.

-A large group calling attention to this phenomenon has manifested and grown

-A tenured MSNBC News Anchor has given testimony on record confirming these biased practices at MSNBC.

Therefore, no one can deny that in American history, Bernie ran for president in the 2020 cycle, and during his run, a group of individuals formed a massive cry on the internet calling attention to media bias. At the very least, everyone can agree that this group has indeed formed and that this collective has publicly called attention to perceived media bias. That alone is grounds for this page to exist: to detail this very moment in history. It is happening now. It is what we are all typing about.

This article can grow, detailing both evidence supporting bias and negating it, but the page should not be deleted, unless we can somehow delete this moment in history. Genos892 (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this page needs to be kept. Masilvas2000 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Article must stay due to the numerous reference and citations and that they are prooved the gist of the article. As a matter of truth the article must stay. Bhantol (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the Article should stay up, it is well researched but I am dumbfounded that the author did not include sources for the claims made. Seems like this could have been avoided if sources were added before publishing. Tmemmeri (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Truth should not be deleted
This is an excellent compilation of media bias examples. It should not be deleted, it should be built upon. I agree with others that deleting this content contributes to the well-documented blackout of the Sanders campaign by corporate sponsored media outlets. Wikipedia should NOT join the ranks of the mainstream media. Keeping truthful sources is too important. Joules1971 (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's relevant and the article lays out the facts devoid as much as is possible of voice or obvious ideological coloring of the details. It makes it's own case convincingly. Procint (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep
Is Wikipedia not a place of record? This article records the bias that is happening because of the lack of a public institution free of corporate control. Wikipedia is one of the public's few places where our words are heard. Suppressing this article would make it harder for public journalism to be heard. I am a current supporter of Wikipedia. Donnyv7 (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

KEEP!!!
This page should definitely be retained. If anyone refutes the information presented on this page, they are free to create a counter-point page, which of course should be subjected to the same vetting process as this page. InterwebsMC (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is part of the reason I included the criticism section as there is not universal agreement about the bias. However, according to most sources—including the mainstream sources, there is some form of bias—albeit for different reasons (they claim) than the campaign claims. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is fair and factual. It does not betray the norms of any other informative article on the subject. To DELETE this page WOULD be revealing a lack of neutrality. It would prove what we already know: that Wikipedia is a prop and a tool of the establishment. See this interview by Chris Hedges and Helen Buyniski --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDPrpKDjQ5U Clbcarman (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep, but perhaps a name change
Instead of “Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders” perhaps the article should be called “Accusations of Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders” or simply “Bernie Sander’s Media Relationship.” As long as the article itself is strictly informative and provides clear sources it should be kept up. I think totally removing this is too much of an attempt to make Wikipedia look politically neutral. Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information and shouldn’t seek to project a particular public image. If the article has merit, which I believe it does, then keep it. Acapriola (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This topic has enough content to warrant its own heading. And having the depth and breadth of information provided gives the topic a level of seriousness that wouldn’t be possible if it were buried on some other Bernie page. These name suggestions would keep the topic more in line with other Wikipedia topics. Keep! Tmanger1 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep the article
Information age seen some ugly turns where ignoring or denying information is a new weapon. Article has proven that such selective media propaganda existed and probably way more against one political candidate or ant newsworthy entity. There are other examples where new misia of country have completely ignored movements from other countries such as protests in HK, yellow vest movements but the ignoring of Senator Bernie Sanders when it comes to the primaries is very prominent and is well merited by the numerous resources and citations included in the article. Bhantol (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

edit request
Please add this !vote to the page:


 * Keep, edit for style sourcing is solid, topic is wp:notable (many independent sources have published about it). Writing style editorializes in places and is overfamiliar in others (referring to Sen. Sanders as "Bernie") but that can be cleaned up.  I believe most of the stuff criticized in the afd as SYNTH can be adequately documented from sources already cited in the article.  One weirdness about the article is that while it gives examples of favorable and unfavorable press coverage at different dates, it evokes a picture of a steady backdrop depicted from differing viewpoints, rather than a press "temperature" changing over time.  I don't see a good way to fix that with available sources, but that's not grounds for deleting the article. The phenomenon of media intervening in elections is significant in the real world, so documenting it in wikipedia is important.  The massive, propaganda-ish tv coverage (often with distorted sound) of the so-called Dean scream was another such intervention and our article section about it doesn't go into it nearly deeply enough. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Reopening, could someone please add the !vote, it is not up to Deacon Vorbis to decide that someone else isn't allowed to comment. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The deleting admin can see the votes here on the talk page.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  12:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Who the hell is raising unsourced and unsigned accusations against participants here?
I just boldly removed an unsigned, anonymous "note" which raised an unsourced accusation against an IP user. Whatever one thinks about IPs voting here (I'm against that), to apply such pressure, exclusively on 'keep' voters, without even signing the bad faithed suspicion, is outrageous! '''I'd like the buraucrats to keep an eye on this discussion and request advice from more experienced users. Where's the right board to raise my concern?'''Gray62 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)i — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that a participant in a discussion is a single-purpose account is fairly standard (see Template:Single-purpose account) and is not usually added with your own signature. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but SIGNING edits is an even older and stonger standard here! Anonymous accusations have no place in discussions. Gray62 (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to add: "An editor has expressed a concern" is a WEASEL phrase! WHO, exactly? We wouldn't leave such an anonymous concern unedited in an article, and thus it is not appriate in an AfD, neither. We shouldn't let consensus building become witchhunts. If there had been any consensus about it being ok to add unsigned notes, i'd like to see that discussion. That may have become a habit, but it's a bad one. Gray62 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (admin response) Gray62, you created your account in 2005 and if you haven't learned to use the tab for page history then that is a competency issue. You are responsible for finding out. If you remove another one then you can expect to be blocked for being disruptive. Editors do not have to sign those additions and the admins that decide the final consensus will weigh SPAs and meatpuppets or canvassed !votes appropriately. You getting upset and cussing about your own ignorance is your fault.
 * Berean, do you think threatening me, an occasional editor who just raised some reasonable concerns, with your admin privileges is appropriate? Imho neither the tone nor the pressure you try to apply here is ok. Gray62 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't a threat, it is a warning. Had I blocked you for it then you would be saying that I never gave you a warning. Yes, it is appropriate. As for tone...you seem to set that with the title of this thread..."Who the hell...".
 * I trust editors reading this to make up their own mind if what you're doing in this thread is a good faithed and warranted warning or a shameless attempt at intimidation. Gray62 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add, you conveniently forgot to mention this: "These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion." So, you're blaming me for criticizing inofficial procedures? Contrary to how you frame it, there's actually not a rule to add unsigned notes, it's just a bad habit! And I raised arguments why this should be changed. Gray62 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Those tags might not be policy but refactoring and disruptive editing would be why I would block you if you reverted the other editors again.
 * Your assumption that I would disrupt other editors proves your bad faith attitude. Imho it's high time a higher instance looks into your behaviour here. Gray62 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The user account in question was made yesterday with the only purpose to !vote in this discussion. That is something that warrants pointing out. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which user account? There have been lots of accusations of canvassing against users in this thread, in some cases without any evidence. Quite unusual for an AfD, I have to say. That's more typical for RfAs and the like. Gray62 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Given that the discussion has a link to external canvassing to a Pro Bernie sub-reddit, accusations of SPA and canvassing are not unwarranted. Slywriter (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * SUSPICIOUN is not unwarranted but to accuse any user here of having been canvassed, a rather intimidating move that's against Wikipedia's goal of broad participation, you should at least provide evidence that that user had read that. Apart from this, it is disputed if that report at Reddit constitutes canvassing at all, not a fact, as you misleadingly state it. Gray62 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, alright if you say so. I'll just end with restating an indisputable fact and let's others draw their own conclusions. The post is titled -"Someone put together one hell of a Wikipedia article that details the media bias against Bernie going all the way back to his 2016 campaign. Wiki wants to delete it and is taking comments" Slywriter (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Imho there's nothing especially wrong with that title, even if the NYT sure would headline that differently. Gray62 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If we were discussing "mating habits of bumblebees", I would agree with you.
 * Instead the topic is american politics and someone highlighting this discussion on a partisan forum was not ideal. At a minimum, it has added unnecessary noise to the conversation. Slywriter (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it wasn't ideal. But let's not be too nitpicking about social media. And as this article proves, traditional media is biased, too. At Wikipedia, we have to deal with this as good as possible. That's no reason to throw the kid out with the bathtub. Gray62 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep the article
You must keep this article. It is absolutely relevant, accurate, and of high importance to millions of American citizens and/or Wikipedia users. Stester2 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Stester, good point, but you need to post this on the AfD page for it to count. This is the AfD's talk page instead. And pls add *keep to your text, to make it easier for those who're counting the votes. Gray62 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reason this talk page exists is because the AfD page itself is semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's meant for unconfirmed users to voice their keep or delete opinions here? Ok, I see. I wasn't familiar with this, haven't seen a protected AfD before. Gray62 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is, in fact, not a good point, because it's doesn't indicate a policy-based rationale for keeping. Moreover, no one is counting the votes, because as the big banner at the top indicates: deletion discussions are not votes. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion, imho the user made a good argument why the article is noteworthy. Anyway, his vote should count. And even if it's against the lofty ideals of Wikipedia, in practise, these discussions boil down to a vote. The number of votes is important, showing consent or not, or else there would be no need to count them. Gray62 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These protections sometimes happen when people get canvassed off-wiki, as may have happened here. But the protection can also get in the way of regulars !voting.  Deacon Vorbis: yes !votes in afd's do get counted. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Valuable article, silly complaints
This article is detailing a much-discussed and documented issue in the 2016 election cycle, and continuing into the current election. It is well-written, includes the proper citations, and is factually correct. The arguments I'm seeing for deletion appear to take issue with the subject itself, and are masking that with ridiculous, nit-picking complaints about exact phrasing of certain sentences. The article is as unbiased as an article detailing a conspiracy of bias can be, and rephrasing to soften the facts would skew the accuracy. The article should stay, and if there are any truly constructive suggestions, they may be considered. Blpme (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Closure statement
This is a very long and well frequented deletion discussion, with many additional comments on the talk page. I also see that the discussion has attracted attention from offsite commenters such as Reddit.

So I'll begin with noting that the scope of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders is to determine whether the article Media bias against Bernie Sanders meets the various criteria laid out at Deletion policy that would justify its removal, as well as assorted Wikipedia policies and guidelines that would justify keeping or otherwise changing it. It is not primarily a discussion on whether the allegations contained in the article are valid, and if the article is deleted it does not automatically imply that Wikipedia considers the allegations in the article invalid; nor does keeping it imply that we consider the arguments as valid. In addition, on Wikipedia we strive for Verifiability as far as our article content is concerned and thus we strongly frown on making claims without any evidence supporting them. Relatedly, Wikipedia deletion discussions are not a mere vote-count; Wikipedia works on Consensus and when assessing a consensus it is also important to assess the strength of the arguments offered and how they line up with the applicable policies, guidelines and custom and practice.


 * The discussion was semiprotected shortly after it began due to canvassing and sockpuppetry. This presumably explains why there are so many comments - all of them keeps - on the talk page. Way too many of them are not policy- or guideline-based, though; we don't right great wrongs here and we don't battle to uncover the truth; the
 * There are 64 "keeps" or "don't delete"s, 1 weak keep/merge, about 22 (+1, the nom) "delete"s and 10 "merge", some of which advocate either a merge or a delete. There are also a bunch of "move"s. Add to that the pattern of votes on the talk page. I'll admit that given the sheer length of the discussion I might have miscounted a little but nothing that would dramatically swing the assessment. Overall it's about 2-1 in favour of keeping, however...
 * There are many many concerns about canvassing and sockpuppetry, bolstered by the striking of several votes as being sock votes, the contribution history of many editors especially on the keep side which appear to have been dormant before this discussion. Plus the links shown here to offsite canvassing efforts that appear to be mainly aimed at keeping the article. There has been a bit of discussion during the discussion (ha!) about the scale of the canvassing and whether it was entirely one sided in favour of keep; it seems like the conclusion is that while there were a few canvassed votes that were pro delete the bulk of the canvassing appears to have favoured the keep camp.
 * It is of course difficult to tell whether any given vote was a product of canvassing, and it's not necessarily always correct to disregard someone's stance simply because they were called here from another place. Thus I am not going to attempt at determining what the vote tally would look like w/o canvassing and will instead focus on the arguments offered here.

The delete arguments offered are that a) the topic is inadequately sourced due to overuse, b) that it violates WP:NOT or is a WP:POVFORK, c) that it encourages the creation of analogous articles for other candidates, d) that its existence gives undue weight to the idea that the media are against Bernie Sanders and a less commonly cited one e) that the topic constitutes a WP:SYNTHESIS that assembles disparate sources to drawn conclusions that cannot be properly attributed to the sources.
 * Point a) has spawned a number of comments about whether there are reliable sources covering that topic, with concerns that a number of "sources" are simply people complaining about their preferred/most disliked candidate not receiving their due/well-deserved criticism (delete as appropriate). The keep camp has countered this argument by saying that even if some sources may be inappropriate, there are still enough reliable sources to satisfy notability criteria - some keeps have acknowledged that the sourcing is inadequate owing to the presence of unreliable sources. Finally, some say that a topic about media bias by mainstream sources cannot be properly discussed without using non-mainstream sources. Some people have proposed that such a topic is ideally covered by academic sources. There has been little detailed discussion on particular sources however.
 * Points b) and d) are influenced by a perception that the article in its current form is just a compilation of all complaints that have been made against the media coverage of the Sanders campaign and gives WP:UNDUE weight to that consideration. Among the keep arguments that were offered in return is that such issues can be resolved by editing or cleanup, or the appending of some more critical views; I see that some keepers have added such information. Also a bunch of vague denials that don't address specific issues. There have been counter-rebuttals that the concerns about POV may be severe enough to justify WP:TNT-based deletion. A related issue is that the whole concept may be part of a directed marketing campaign; this subtopic has spawned a bit of heated discussion without much evidence.
 * Regarding point c) not much evidence has been cited other than the existence of the Trump derangement syndrome article. Plus a question has been raised whether in such a case one should create analogous articles, rather than treating as a problem, or whether the existence of this article should indeed be treated as a precedent. There have been some subthreads in the discussion about this question as the concern is that creating a precedent for this kind of pages would create a huge maintenance overhead.
 * Point e) has not gained much discussion outside of Frankie1969's comment and Mithridates's point about this not being well-defined. There are a few more comments about whether individual parts of the article violate WP:SYNTH, but there is a difference between saying that all of the article violates it and between saying that some of the article violates it.
 * Among the keep arguments are also many statements that do not address the delete arguments, such as claims that deletion is being sought for out of personal dislike, that the information in question is important and not propaganda and that an election is pending and that there is in fact a conspiracy to "black out" the Sanders campaign - none of these arguments are by themselves a reason for keeping an article or rebuttals of the delete ones. There are also statements based on WP:SOFIXIT and WP:PAPER that may be grounded in policy or guideline, but do not actually address the delete arguments, or arguments based on notability arguments that do not address POV-based arguments.
 * In addition, a number of people have suggested that the title of the article is an issue more than its topic as it suggests that the media are in fact biased against Bernie Sanders and that "media" may be too vague a concept, thus some people have advanced rename proposals (some have prefixed these as "merger" proposals; I'll treat a proposal to merge an article into a non-existent other article as equivalent to a rename proposal). In light of WP:POVFORK concerns there are also merger suggestions. There has been a bit of discussion on new names, as there are arguments either pro or con particular names and there are a number of new names proposed here. Some deletes have also such issues, by asserting that the topic is unfounded without explaining why this would justify deletion.
 * There are also merger arguments as in other campaigns commentary on media coverage is covered in the campaign articles; one counterargument is that moving the content of this article over to, say, Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign (other targets have been proposed) would induce undue weight concerns.

Now, onto the actual conclusion. Overall, on the notability question there has been a fair amount of discussion, but some people have offered unrebutted sources about the topic that satisfy WP:GNG; there has been not much discussion on this aspect. Regarding the POV issues, the general tenor is that a lot of people acknowledge POV issues and advocacy problems in the article but there is no consensus that a wholesale deletion should be the fix for the issue. On the other hand, enough concerns about the name exist that a dedicated rename discussion is warranted, so no consensus, but begin a rename discussion.

PS: In case people wonder why it took so little to analyze the discussion and formulate a close, that's because I began writing it before the actual closing time, under the assumption that the status of the discussion was unlikely to drastically change during the last two hours. And yes, I did re-read the discussion prior to closing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I concur. Here is my closing statement, typed up at about the same time as Jo-Jo Eumerus:
 * Numerically, opinions are about 3 to 1 in favor of keeping. In terms of arguments, there are valid points being made on both sides, to wit: the topic has plenty of reliable sources and is therefore notable, versus: the title and presentation of the content are not-neutral, and this (sub)topic of the Sanders campaign would be more appropriately treated (in terms of weight, etc.) in the context of existing articles about the campaign. Both of these points are defensible in terms of Wikipedia policy (and in fact do not necessarily exclude each other). But strictly in terms of arguments for or against deletion, I think the "keep" side has the stronger argument, because the concerns evoked by the delete side can be remedied by measures short of deletion: editing, renaming, merging. That being so, I'd normally close this discussion as "keep", but I am reluctant to do so here because the apparently widespread canvassing makes it difficult to ascertain how many opinions should really be taken into account. This means the article is, for now, kept for lack of consensus to delete it.  Sandstein   18:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * A sensible closure for a very messy AfD. Obviously not the outcome I would've preferred, but hard to argue with this kind of careful explanation. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly a bit shocked at how easily this was done. I expected this to be alot harder to determine an answer towards. Good job the admins at such a professional and well done job.-- Will C  23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)