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, but begin a rename discussion. A closure statement will be posted on the talk page. Please excuse that the close is 15 minutes early. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small amendment as I did misread the timestamps. Note also that another admin was also planning to close this discussion; their statement is on the talk page underneath mine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media bias against Bernie Sanders

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Media bias against Bernie Sanders (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)

Article engages in significant speculation and scope and caliber of sources (WP:N, WP:RS). Rather soapbox-y as well per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Inclusion justifies inclusion of "Media bias against (other candidate)" articles (i.e. Yang/Tulsi/Kamala/etc.), Trump in 2016, etc.. You can find people rankled up about lack of coverage for any candidate for elected office anywhere, it's not notable that some of them have mediums being used as sources here. Buggie111 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit to amend: Can also possibly be merged into the relevant "Polls and news coverage" sections of Bernie Sanders (2016/2020). Buggie111 (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Edit to add: Per WP:SPINOFF, "Article splits are permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. On the other hand, having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident." The POV of this article is questionable to say the least, and regardless, the existence of this article gives undue weight to a minor aspect of one candidate's campaign. Miadtkt (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Miadtkt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
That was in reference to the soapboxy vibe of the article. Given the, uh, open-natured aspect of "alternative media" sources from such sites are less likely to be fair, reliable sources and more someone venting that their preferred candidate isn't getting fair treatment. There's a case for a fair discussion of the subject after removing said sources and their associated content, but by that point I think it'll be small enough to just place in either an article about the candidate or about the campaign. Buggie111 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is newsworthy if the news is talking about it, which they are. This article fits all five criteria listed by Wikipedia:Notability. And yes, candidates could engage in, and do engage in it. However, the media has reported substantially on this topic. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bringing one's personal political bias (in this case against the left) doesn't really assist in an argument against keeping an article about political bias. There is some objectivity to the view that corporate media is shorting particular campaigns that don't fit into establishment viewpoints. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your entire comment "reads like a soapbox" yet you're smearing the entire article the same way. Pure projection. Nineledarmoc (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Nineledarmoc (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Rvoskoboynikov (talk • contribs). Reply[reply]
If you don't mind, could you explain why you think this argument is a "smear" towards the article? I read it as a solid case against the article, albeit with a bit of WP:AON near the end. — Chevvin 21:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, articles like this for other candidates aren't absent because only Sanders supporters feel strongly enough to make charts assessing his positive and negative mentions. Charts like this for multiple candidates have been made and they show that the Sanders coverage is the least favourable. That's what makes this not a conspiracy theory — data acquired by journalists. And as for your Trump comparison, we already have an article in this vein. It's quite plausible that it would've been given the title "media bias against Donald Trump" had he lost the election. Connor Behan (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It is clearly not conspiratorial in nature at all. As a matter of fact, only one journalist accused it as being a conspiracy. All of the others agreed that some form of bias exists but for different reasons that what Sanders or his campaign say. Also, the fact that we have an article about Trump derangement syndrome makes it shockingly obvious that this article is not nearly as controversial of a topic. Maybe it needs a different title, but the topic stands on its own for notability and verifiability. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I'm not arguing it's nefarious or malicious, as someone who caught that segment live, it was grossly misleading. This isn't a matter of a graphic being wrong for a moment, but a graphic used as a center-piece of several minutes of discussion being grossly misleading. All that had to be done was to properly describe the data that was being shown on that segment, but they neglected to mention that the data was filtered by some specific criteria. Had this been a simple matter of a passing image being wrong, I would not take issue with your characterization, but even this singular example substantially more wide-ranging than that. Slapbox (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would just like to comment and say that there have been more problems with the article than just the (lack of) existence of other articles, namely NPOV concerns. Additionally, arguments based entirely around WP:AON, as yours is, are typically weaker compared to others. — Chevvin 21:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, in response to claims of article uniqueness, I would argue that we could potential have other articles such as bias against Yang or Trump; however, they would need to fit the criteria of notability. In Trumps case, there have actually been a great deal of studies that have found the media to be explicitly bias against him. One of the studies cited in this article even discusses it. As for Yang or Tulsi. So little media attention has been given that it renders it not notable.
I can tell you that when writing the article, the number of sources about the bias concerning Sanders was overwhelming. I tried my best to give a decent picture of what secondary sources were saying about the matter. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Azcolvin429, are you the same person who posted this article to multiple pro-Bernie Reddit sites? (Redacted) Because if so I would strongly warn you against violating WP:MEATPUPPET, and dissuade canvassing/meatpuppetry attempts by other accounts in all 3 threads you posted - as in my (non-admin) opinion keeping links up is indirect meatpuppetry. Buggie111 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those posts were made in good faith to encourage contributions in the article development. The dates clearly indicated posting long before any AfD was initiated. There is no meat-puppetry. Your accusations are unwarranted as you can explicitly see an open invitation to edit the article both before posting to the mainspace and after. Later comments from others came after the AfD. In addition, an anti-Sanders Reddit that links (here) was absolutely canvassing to encourage support for the AfD nom. As for the other posts, I will gladly delete them if needed. Though one has been locked by moderators already. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, well then please continue to explicitly dissuade any such canvassing and meatpuppet actions in those links by others, if you intend to keep any up. Buggie111 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, this seems rather problematic. I will not link to the reddit account in question (assuming it was redacted above), but there appear to be at least two or three still-active posts on pro-Sanders subreddit(s), including one showing the article author as a contributor to the Bernie Sanders campaign. These pages are quite active, so this could certainly be impacting the discussion here. To say that the meat-puppetry accusations are unwarranted is rather disingenuous absent any further action. Should these posts not be removed, or can an admin chime in here? Quac (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main issue I have with essentially the entire basis of this article, and your reasoning provided to justify its existence, relates to the notability question. More specifically, even with your explanation here, I believe there's a significant WP:NRV (via WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTOPINION) issue. When you say that "the very fact that the media is talking about it indicates [its] notability," we need to take a look again at the secondary sources used to establish this perceived pattern of bias. Which media is talking about it? This is an important question per the entirety of WP:N.
After another quick read through, I note the sources used to established the supposed "media bias against Bernie Sanders" as follows: Washington Free Beacon (WP:QUESTIONABLE), Washington Examiner (WP:PARTISAN), Media Matters for America (WP:BIASED), HuffPost (this is contributor content, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § HuffPost contributors), FAIR ("biased or opinionated" see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources), Jacobin (WP:BIASED) and so on. Where the source is biased it is not always attributed, but is it "newsworthy" to the point of notability when all secondary sources supporting the premise of a media bias against Bernie Sanders are apparently biased in favor of Bernie Sanders, and generally unreliable at that? Quite a bit comes from MintPress News, a news website which seems quite controversial. So if the article is called "Media bias against Bernie Sanders," and the sources used to demonstrate a media bias against Bernie Sanders are inherently unreliable per Wikipedia standards, does this not lead to the WP:NRV / WP:SOAPBOX / WP:NOTOPINION issues?
Most commentators here have already acknowledged significant NPOV issues as well, and even if that is addressed and/or biased segments are pared down, there's still the unaddressed issue that this doesn't meet notability guidelines. To summarize, with the existing issues per WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NRV (and perhaps WP:POVFORK, unfortunately), I still believe this article should be deleted, primarily due to notability issues. Quac (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources do not have to be neutral according to WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Additionally, there are plenty of so-called non-bias sources to support the same claims. Also, you make accusations that the particular sources are bias, but you have no foundation to stand on. This is conjecture. You may consider sources to be biased or questionable, but someone else may interpret them differently. The discussion here is not about what sources are biased or not bias. We can easily sift through the sources and remove bias ones if they are supported by so-called non-bias sources. However, I tried my best to do that when writing. I attempted to use sources that were only talked about in multiple places by multiple news outlets. Nevertheless, the article is definitely newsworthy and notable. Policy bombarding is not a useful technique either when you could simply work towards improving the article.Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a discussion regarding the proposed article deletion, which generally includes discussion of Wikipedia policy, does it not? I'm trying to contribute to the discussion, not bombard anything, although as discussed above you have essentially bombarded the discussion through meatpuppetry. If you aren't interested in the policy, then I assume you're not interested in the merits of the discussion, anyway, and would rather engage in bad faith tactics here.
My "accusations" regarding biased sources were mostly pulled from WP:RSPSOURCES, as noted. And yes, sources do not have to be neutral, but when the entire basis of the article is mostly derived from those which aren't, this leads to other issues. Quac (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I ask which sources would convince you that this phenomenon is notable? CNN reporting that NBC is biased and NBC reporting that CNN is biased? So far, we have the next best thing which is people who used to work for MSNBC alleging that they were under pressure to minimize the Sanders campaign. Biased sources are reliable in certain contexts. And one of those contexts is the one visible now — sources with different types of left-wing or right-wing biases all converging to the same opinion, making it much less likely to be WP:FRINGE. Connor Behan (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, some people from Enough_Sanders_Spam found your article and reported it for deletion. Typical liberal cowards. Nineledarmoc (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Nineledarmoc (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Rvoskoboynikov (talk • contribs). — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rvoskoboynikov (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Reply[reply]
Given that this topic is critical of leading US media, it seems unreasonable to demand under the guise of WP:RS that the 'reliable sources' targeted by this criticism impartially discuss their own bias. Thus, the definition of RS here should be extended (within reason) to include sources outside of corporate-owned media.
Concerns with WP:NPOV of the author should be addressed with constructive editing, as the author collecting an allegedly lopsided selection of information here is still in keeping with WP:BOLD and does not invalidate the authenticity of the collected information itself. That this article should be deleted because there may be a lot to add or amend (due to this article's length) constitutes catch-22 type reasoning, as had the article been shorter, it could've been criticized as an stub that doesn't merit its own article. There needs to be a possible avenue for adding new content as per BOLD, even if it is disagreed with by some. Selvydra (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I would also add that I would strongly recommend an interested editor to find information and sources that respond to the accusations of bias to give the article a more balanced perspective. The criticism section was my attempt—thought to be honest, I was hard-pressed to find refutations. Almost all the sources gave some credence to the bias, including the sources that responded to the accusations by Sanders, his campaign, or his supporters. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although some may take issue with the idea there's any bias against Sanders, it seems clear to me that there is
I could get behind support of a merge with a broader article like the one you linked. This might be a good compromise of an obviously notable subject. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this in principle, but the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article referenced in this and other comments appears to have been deleted or renamed. Can anyone confirm what happened to that article? Barefootmatt (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Barefootmatt, as far as I can tell, there is not, and has never been, an article at that name. It's just a suggestion about how to rename this article more neutrally if it is to be kept. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you provide some examples that indicate the article is unsalvageable? The article consistently mentions instances where respondents disagree or interpret the accusations. Also, if you'd like, you are welcome to cite sources that refute the accusations. There is criticism section that does this. It is short, but that is due to the fact that I was unable to find many criticisms from the media. What I did find was a lot of articles agreeing that some for of bias or misreporting exists but is explained by alternative causes. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title is the first clue. Then in the very first paragraph, I see at least four further problems, one of which I will name -- the fact that paragraph closes with a discussion of what the Sanders campaign says. "Unsalvageable" is a conclusion that comes, not from one individual issue, but from the accumulation of all of them.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't find your argument that the title and referencing the claims of the campaign make the issue "unsalvagable" to be persuasive. I know you mentioned having other issues, but I assume you mentioned the ones that you see as the worst. I definitely don't think that you've made a case justifying removal. Slapbox (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article may meet GNG, but as it stands a majority of the article is written in a non-neutral point of view and would require a complete rework of the article, if the article is not TNTed. To push aside all arguments as WP:ILIKEIT is very disingenuous and ignores all concerns about neutrality posed. — Chevvin 00:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. There is discussion here including legitimate concerns -- it's certainly disingenuous to lump that all together as WP:IDONTLIKEIT considering the points raised regarding WP:R and, following, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. We can "pass" GNG but we still have issues with WP:NOT. Quac (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the controversial nature of the subject, the authors seem to have made a valiant effort to cite a plethora of data and analysis. They succeeded: Most paragraphs outlining instances of bias against sanders are devoid of any spin, and sticks to the facts. All reals concerned about neutrality should be addressed by editing the article, but painting the whole article as written in a non-neutral way is incorrect.Emass100 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A rename to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders would miss the point that the article is addressing specifically the widespread conclusion that there is an anti-Sanders bias. If a rename were necessary, a better choice would be Alleged media bias against Bernie Sanders. I don’t think that’s necessary, however. We have articles on Loch Ness Monster and Popish Plot with no "alleged" in the title. As long as the article reports the theory and the opposition to the theory, with a fair presentation of the facts relied on by each side, it’s NPOV. JamesMLane t c 02:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally: I agree completely with the observations of original research and synthesis in Surachit's comment below. Those seriously need to be addressed if we're keeping this article in any form. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I will point out that in its current state, the article has major concerns. Large sections of text are sourced to a MintPress News article, a source which has been determined to be unreliable by consensus. There are also problems with original research, such as the entire subsection on DNC email leaks (synthesis, as there's no cited relation between the email leaks and media bias against Sanders), and this section (which accuses CNN of contradicting themselves by citing two separate CNN articles). I believe all of these problems, as well as any NPOV issues, are fixable, though. Surachit (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I direct you to Trump derangement syndrome. POV allegations in this discussion have, so far, been excessively based on individual's disagreement with the existence of the media bias. Whether or not the bias exists, discussion of the bias does. And it is well documented by the mainstream media. I suggest you actually read some of the sources cited in the text. Further, according to the NPOV policy, there are 5 major factors needing considered:
  • Avoid stating opinions as facts.
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
  • Avoid stating facts as opinions.
  • Prefer nonjudgmental language.
  • Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
There is, to my knowledge, nowhere in the article that states opinions as facts. It plainly states what journalists say. That's it. Additionally, there is no undue weight as the article contains a section about opposition as well as media responses to the accusations of bias. The only POV violation that could possibly be found would be wording issues that may need to be edited or rewritten to sound more neutral. Controversial political topics are increasingly difficult to word without offending someone's sense of neutrality or objectivity. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 18:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such a merger would immediately be followed by a chorus of "undue weight" and demands to eliminate a great deal of properly sourced information. This is an excellent case for WP:SS: Keep this separate article, while leaving a summary in the parent article. If accusations of bias concerning Gabbard or Yang or anyone else become similarly significant, so that the presentation of the relevant facts (pro and con) threatens to swamp the main article about the campaign, then the same treatment will be appropriate. JamesMLane t c 06:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something I haven't seen proponents of delete or merge explain yet is this: How is an editor meant to ever contribute an article that is (allegedly; see Trump derangement syndrome) the first one of its kind? Are they expected to create similar articles for other such notable people and post them simultaneously to justify the existence of the category? If not, then is Sanders not sufficiently noteworthy a politician to meet the criteria of a first?
And, regarding WP:NPOV concerns – if the body of content available on the topic doesn't have a 50/50 for-and-against distribution (as was indicated by the author on this page), is an editor to artificially create one in the article? Selvydra (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selvydra: - re "first one of its kind" - So you're saying we should start writing Media bias against X articles? You realize that could potentially be thousands of articles? Everyone is going to want to write about why the media is unfair to their candidate. It would change WP from an encyclopedia into a forum for political shenanigans. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NickCT: – If there's a large enough body of discussion to write an article about it that isn't a stub, then why not? You'll probably find that, for most other US contenders, there isn't, and thus no-one has written one. Selvydra (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selvydra: - "You'll probably find that, for most other US contenders" - Probably not. I guarantee you, for every Dem Primary contender someone has written something about how the media is biased against that person. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And forget just the Dem Primary contenders. "Media is biased" articles have been written about every politician in US History. Forget politicians, how about celebrities? Or any other random topic. We could have millions of "Media bias against X" articles. You want to open that pandora's box? NickCT (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course. Wikipedia does not (practically speaking) hold a finite amount of space wherein you'd have to start arbitrating which categories of articles do and do not get to exist. That should be determined by whether there is enough content on the subject to write an article about it. For instance, "Media bias vs. Hickenlooper" is a valid article to explore, but you'd probably be able to count the number of existing sources with one hand. Contrast that to this article. I will point to what SharabSalam replied to you re: WP:Other. As for your reply to them ("WP:Other is not the only argument here") – other arguments such as WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP have had valid counter-arguments presented to them by many on this page. Selvydra (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "infinite space for infinite nonsense"argument, huh? Last respite of the inclusion-ists. Look..... at some point you've got to have an opinion about what content simply isn't encyclopedic.
You seem to accept there's a WP:SOAP argument here (whether or not there are counter arguments). That in combination with WP:OTHER should be making you reconsider. NickCT (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)'Reply[reply]
Arguments can be made on most anything, but whether they are valid is another question. My opinion on the inclusion threshold is informed chiefly by WP:N. Other parameters will move that threshold up or down, but when you can write an article with 50+ citations -- even if some are called into question -- on the topic, the answer should be clear.
On a more common-sense level: This is a topic that US mainstream media is discouraged from covering impartially, as it stands to hurt them. The existence of media bias vs. Sanders follows rudimentary logic: the media in question is private, for-profit and owned by big corporations whose financial interests run counter to his politics. They have a responsibility to their shareholders, and prioritizing impartiality over profit would be harmful to that. Thus, there is a direct incentive to be as biased against candidates like Sanders as they can be while still retaining plausible deniability.
WP:Other is not a policy, but if you desire to use it as a criterion, it is nonetheless "met" given that Trump derangement syndrome exists. And an article will appear increasingly like WP:Soap to a reader who, on a personal level, disagrees with the content of the article. A climate skeptic will think that an article on anthropogenic climate change is a soapbox for alarmists. A proponent of herbal remedies will consider an article on the efficacy of conventional medicine a soapbox for the pharmaceutical industry. And on it goes. In each of these cases, they can claim WP:Soap and WP:NPOV on the basis that the article has more content in opposition to than in favor of their ideology, whereas that coverage distribution is merely a consequence of the distribution of existing work on the subject. Given the obvious premise of big-corporation-owned media being biased against a leftist who has made breaking up big corporations part of their agenda -- the existence of this bias and its quantification in tallies (published by sources outside of this media, rather obviously) by default has more merit than the simple opinion of someone standing atop a soapbox. Selvydra (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could get on board with a retitling to Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders. That would be more neutral and still indicate that it is a notable topic owrthy of documentation—whether or not it is true. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But how is one supposed to write about the bias of mainstream media without using alternative media as sources? One can't expect sources to be virtuous enough as to impartially discuss their own bias – and thus, placing a requirement of mainstream media sourcing on this topic to me seems tantamount to saying that the impartiality of said media is not allowed to be questioned as long as it itself doesn't admit to it. What's more, mainstream media *has* been cited in this article, but people still take issue with the presence of alternative media. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for balanced discussion on the topic. Selvydra (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't a "co-ordinated marketing push" by any campaign or its "media outlets", this information has been around since the last election stemming from Wikileaks emails, personal admissions of MSM higher-ups (specifically Donna Brazile) and swaths of online and personal anecdotes corroborated by groups of people. This also occurred with Donald Trump, and has now notably become an issue for both Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard. This article is an analysis of the media bias, far removed from a marketing campaign that you claim. If you can handle the other Wikileaks releases pertaining to Edward Snowden and the NSA, Chelsea Manning's military documents and the Panama Papers, I don't see why the leaked DNC emails are any different. The information speaks for itself, and backs up the article past reasonable doubt through to legitimacy. Letmejustcorrectthatforyou (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
goethean, the moment you called individuals representing the campaign hacks, you lost credibility for your support for deletion. That is not a valid response regarding this issue. Obviously the subject matter is credible enough to be covered by a variety of sources as listed in the article itself.WillC 12:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll tell you who has lost credibility here—it's the editor who positively gushed over an article filled with POV and WP:RS violations. — goethean 15:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something which you failed to actually prove goethean. Because majority of the sources are CNN, Yahoo, WP, NYT, Hill, etc. If there are POV of issues, point them out exactly like a peer review either here or on the talk page. Allow editors to solve the issue. If the naming is a problem, create a naming issue. Otherwise, you are showing a desire to just kill the article rather than actually improve it beyond the problems.WillC 18:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something which you failed to actually prove goethean.
Wrong. I removed sections of the article that were poorly sourced. But they were intact in the version which you blithely found to be hunky-dory. I support deletion of the article. It is a POV violation. It is the product of a campaign by Sanders to obtain more friendly media coverage. It looks like they have succeeded—at least at Wikipedia, which seems to be perfectly amenable to the Sanders campaign using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote Bernie Sanders. — goethean 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet again, I don't think this should be immediately shut down as a "product" by someone somewhere in the Sanders campaign, because it's not actually true. Yes, members of pro-Bernie groups have been made aware of this article on reddit, but that only goes so far as to implicate canvassing on the part of some Wikipedia users here. I don't see an inside job here, that is just an unbacked claim. You support its deletion, fine, POV issues are certainly an issue with this page. Calling it a Sanders campaign product however? Very debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letmejustcorrectthatforyou (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Goethean you didn't do anything but remove stuff you didn't agree with. Sections cited by CNN, WP, Independent, etc. Then change things to fit a narrative you wanted, like titling In These Times as a left-wing magazine to make it sound more fringe which isn't NPOV. In These Times is a progressive magazine which most of the Democratic Party likes to suggest it. If we went by that, MSNBC would be called a left-wing news agency. Meanwhile, you've positioned this as a marketing campaign when it was discussed by agencies outside of the campaign long before this article even existed. Even it the idea of bias was a campaign, it has grown large enough that is it an actual thing that is pointed out by news agencies. Every comment you make shows you don't have a neutral view on this subject to begin with and shouldn't be editing this article. That you believe none of it is even true and thus can't be objective.WillC 21:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are lying. I removed material which was sourced to the mysterious and disreputable anonymous crypto-blog MintPress News. If I were you, I would be ashamed to have praised a version of the article that contained material sourced to a fake news site. — goethean 22:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mighty strong accusations there. What about removing a WP citation here? [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders&diff=prev&oldid=928981284 Removing CNN here], which was actually a valid paragraph to show contradiction in media reports that could have been re-written to pass any policy issues. I'd argue the reliability of this source Removing Independent and Pew citations here. So you've removed reliable citations covering information that could remain in the article. Yet removed everything it says and connected to it all for issues behind 2 or 3 sources. Using terms like fake news is a stretch. Again showing you can't be objective with your statements and your viewpoints. You obviously have a biased against the article and anything discussing this topic as "fake news". Again, you shouldn't be editing this article.WillC 07:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every single one of my edits follow Wikipedia policy. There were WP:SYNTH violations all over the article. Look again at the article on which you lavished praise. It has about ten citations to MINTPRESS NEWS, a completely bullshit source. The only reason that you are defending this bullshit is because you want to further Bernie Sander's Presidential Campaign. Stop lying, stop dissembling, stop defecting. Stop engaging in partisan politics. Be honest for two seconds. — goethean
What about that part regarding self published sources where it is based on the author and not on the actual website? You removed Medium sources which are selfpublished but fall under the expert clause that dictates they are acceptable if one can prove the author is an expert in their field. Guess you forgot about that. Examine WP:SYNNOT before pointing at SYNTH because the issue is you just deleted whole sourced sections that had a point. A valid contradict of CNN pointing at the campaign using specific data and then turning around and having used that same data is a valid point to make. That is an actual criticism that should have just been written better in an article about media bias towards the Sanders campaign that doesn't violate SYNTH because it isn't trying to make a new claim, it is pointing out a editorial contradiction based on sources. Partisan politics? From the same person calling people hacks. You've shown from day one that you aren't unbiased. If we are going to call a spade and spade, it is pretty obvious you don't like the Sanders campaign and due to your bias against Sanders I'd expect you were a Clinton supporter who thought he cost her the election somehow and think his campaign is just making this stuff up, so no matter what you'll never accept any of this to be possibly true. Or just another neoliberal. Letalone that there are currently 54 citations in the article and you don't have a valid point against any of them. A marketing campaign doesn't create proof for the campaign, it is an attempt to manipulate the public into believing something without proof. This has actual studies and evidence for it to suggest valid allegations and controversy. I'm not furthering any campaign. I'm an economists and paralegal. I like politics and I like statistics. The primary covers both politics. One would have to be a fool to not see issues in media coverage and that media has always had an agenda.WillC 15:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
> Or just another neoliberal.
Wow! Are you deliberately promoting the most ridiculous stereotype of a Bernie Sanders supporter? Everyone who doesn't support Dear Leader is a neo-liberal. — goethean 15:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if the shoe fits. Look at your stance so far. Making your own conspiracy theories that people are here because they are connected to the campaign, that the only reason people support is because of partisan issues (which goes both directions), that people coming here are just pro-Sanders and can't be any other reason, etc. That sounds like alot of neoliberal stances. Afterall, Sanders is left of center, most of his opponents are right of center, thus neoliberals. You've yet to give any valid reason for this to be deleted in its current state other than conspiracy theories. As I see it, you've provided ample proof of the possibility of being a neoliberal. Such hate for the topic right out of the gate. Afterall, lower down are established editors who are questioning why this is even up for deletion and have provided evidence that a strong "Anti-Sanders" crowd is making a campaign to take this page down. Sounds like neoliberal nonsense to me. Lets not forget, you were the first to question people's political allegiances. You brought that on yourself.--WillC 20:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ^This is the first edit this user makes in 6 months. It's also the first AfD discussion in more than 2 years that this user has participated in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep the article is sourced. There are multiple sources that prove that there is bias in the media.this one for exampleand this. Deletion arguments does not convince me because they are mostly other stuff does not exist. I also second what Selvydra said.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that most of the arguments for deletion are based on WP:OTHER. I would fully support articles on similar topics concerning other politicians. We may not like it or agree, but there is plenty of evidence that there is some form of bias against certain politicians (namely Sanders and Trump, among others). If someone were to write an article about the Media bias against Donald Trump or Media coverage of Donald Trump I would fully support it as there is a mountain of evidence to support the controversial claims. Even if it was not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", it is still discussed by media sources, articles, books, journals, etc. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Andrew, what is your relationship with Bernie Sanders' 2018 campaign for President? — goethean 19:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SharabSalam and Azcolvin429: - Just so we're on the same page, WP:OTHER can be a good rationale to delete or keep, right? NickCT (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NickCT, yea it can but I don't find it convincing. Read the essay to know when WP:OTHER is a valid argument and when it is not, The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article--SharabSalam (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SharabSalam: - re "based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" - Sure. But WP:OTHER obviously isn't the only argument here. There are others.  ;-p NickCT (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Goethean: That isn't relevant unless there is evidence he was commissioned to create this article. Being a fan or a supporter of any kind isn't relevant, because if it was articles wouldn't be created nor expanded on this project without that interest. The request of that information is odd coming from you and would warrant the same request of information from you.WillC 12:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully support a good faith attempt at ensuring neutrality (as much as possible with controversial political topics), but I fully agree. Everything stated comes directly from a cited source—many of which are verified by multiple sources.Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ^This is the first edit made by this user in nearly ten months. The editor has made less than a dozen edits in the last three years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Keep This article is such a monstrosity and so flagrantly violates Wikipedia policy and mission, that it serves as a great example to warn people about what a disaster Wikipedia has become, and warn people away from relying on or using Wikipedia as a source for information.MarcelB612 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MarcelB612: - You voted Keep, but gave a rationale for Delete.....? NickCT (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've struck Marcel's vote as invalid. AfD is not a forum for polemic protests.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Simtropolitan: The argument regarding Other is a bit hollow. Would an Al Gore page be made? That depends on the evidence. Would one for Joe Biden be made? That depends on the evidence. Would one regarding Trump? That depends on the evidence. How could those articles exist if there isn't any information to actually place inside of them? If there is information, then wouldn't that warrant an actual discussion to see if they are valid for an encyclopedia? This subject is a pretty significant discussion that continues to be held, dating all the way back to the 2016 primaries and the 2016 DNC email hack.WillC 12:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That really doesn't matter, they should be discussed within the appropriate articles but creating an entire series like this really seems to tick off more than a few tickboxes of what Wikipedia is not, namely regarding essays, as well as WP:PLOT and WP:SOAP. An encyclopedia is a summary of places, people, concepts. The ad nauseam this precedence will inevitably trigger will only lead to mission creep. There are plenty of other appropriate places for a full article on this, but Wikipedia does not strike me as one. And to be clear since it keeps being raised by others, I would also say Trump derangement syndrome really ought to have only a line or two in another appropriate article rather than its own.--Simtropolitan (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Simtropolitan: Nothing listed in the four points listed in PLOT relates to this article. It is not a "Summary-only descriptions of works.", "Lyrics databases.", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics.", or "Exhaustive logs of software updates.". Nor does it fall in line with any of the SOAP points. It is nor does "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind", "Opinion pieces.", "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping.", "Self-promotion", or "Advertising, marketing or public relations." It is an article about a variety of allegations and issues related to the two presidential campaigns held by Bernie Sanders focused on media coverage. Inside said article are several instances of verified and sourced actions taken by media institutions. These events are not covered by unvetted unknown third or primary sources, but by actual mainstream reliable sources: WP, Hill, Rolling Stone, NYT, CNN, etc. Of which, we currently sit at 54 citations, most of which are obviously reliable. The issues that stem from PLOT and SOAP seems to come from individuals that have not actually read the article being presented before us. The topic is obviously controversial so depending on opinion of the topic beforehand is how individuals will see the subject-matter, which will influence how they see the article prose. Whether it is neutral or not. And above user believes it isn't neutral, but followed that up with calling the article a marketing campaign and individuals in the campaign as hacks. That suggests no matter how it is written, they don't like the topic and it will never meet NPOV in their eyes. And vice versa.WillC 18:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bernie Sanders campaign for each election cycle, has articles, the election cycles themselves have articles, the DNC email hacks are reflected in an article. Media bias and corporate news coverage are all relevant and documented in articles, and this could be an example within them with proper sources. Readers can find this pertinent information and draw their own conclusions, but creating series of articles across these fronts, which will come from these greenlighted sources, just does not appear to be within the scope of an encyclopedia. That is my opinion, but moreover I feel this is well reflected in the scope of Wikipedia and what it is not. This is, by its nature an advocacy piece. I have read the article, and I stand by the fact that PLOT and SOAP absolutely apply here. This isn't about difference of opinion of the subject therein, this is about what the scope of Wikipedia's separate articles are and what this invites, which is far more patrolling and discussion for a project that is meant to serve as a reference work. Additionally questioning using outside sources to demonstrate WP:MEAT as you have below, stands in contrast to the nature of the accusation. Of course one needs to find outside sources to demonstrate such a thing, and I think from others' posts, that has been thoroughly documented.--Simtropolitan (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That isn't a valid reason for deletion of this topic though. Just because other articles could be create doesn't mean they are because there has to be evidence for them to actually be created. If they are created and have enough valid information then they are valid and notable articles that should exist. That is how articles are made. You are claiming this is going to be a "point to" piece, which doesn't actually matter. All articles on wikipedia are a point to piece. Flat Earth exists which can be used for the same purpose. Whatever the meaning behind the creation by the user doesn't mean anything now. This is now a discussion by wikipedia at large that gets to decide the fate of this article, which means discussing the merits of the actual topic at large. Just because the creator may have wanted to use it for whatever means they wanted doesn't negate the actual subject at hand. Did the individual that started this page think there was a bias? Obviously, it wouldn't exist otherwise. That doesn't negate nor affirm that a bias exists. What does is the evidence at hand. Which is what we aren't actually focusing on. We are focusing on the intention of outside editors. The content of the article is what actually matters. The content which is pointing out something that has been measured by actual verified sources. We can remove all of the canvassing efforts from the equation. It stills comes down to whether the content is valid for an encyclopedia. Considering MSNBC controversies exists, it appears media bias is a valid topic for an encyclopedia.WillC 20:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's another article which frankly could be consolidated elsewhere. For what reason do we have to document all of this evidence as a standalone topic? Especially when it can be placed in many other existing articles. Again, evidence does not mean Wikipedia is the place for this as an essay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a media watchdog, or journal. There is no reason that MSNBC controversies couldn't be condensed into the main article there or in respective articles where such bias took place, e.g. election articles. That is the entire crux of this- the information exists, does it warrant being in its own article? You already have my opinion. --Simtropolitan (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is where significance of topic comes into play. Seems to be pretty significant enough to garner such a level of discussion that has polarized sides.WillC 21:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comparison to Israel and the apartheid analogy is quite apt in my view. Slapbox (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would strongly contest your claim that the 2016 campaign was a "very different dynamic". CompactSpacez (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macktheknifeau: - re "fix them yourself" - The article itself is a soapbox, and there would be no way to fix it. If I started an article called The rent is too darn high, it might be a notable subject, it might be fundamentally true, but it would still be a soapbox. NickCT (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can make whatever articles you want. If they contain reliable sources about a notable subject. Your hypothetical is irrelevant to this article. It is neither propaganda, opinion, gossip, self-promotion or marketing and thus doesn't qualify as a "soapbox".Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macktheknifeau: - It's clearly advocacy. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In your opinion. All users are entitled to construct and edit pages on any topic that cites reliable sources in a manner that establishes notability. Being the political supporter of a candidate doesn't automatically invalidate their edits as long as they follow Wikipedia guidelines, and I believe this page clearly does follow them, and at worst, any specific issues should be dealt with on the talk page with a consensus found, rather than deleting the entire article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macktheknifeau: - Saying "the media is biased against my candidate" is advocacy. That's not opinion. It's fact. NickCT (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is well sourced, well written, and about a notable topic. If you feel any individual editor is biased and/or ignoring Wikipedia's central tenants regarding sourcing & notability or has made a blanket statement of some kind that doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines, you should post about it on the talk page of the topic and a consensus can be found regarding their edits. You can call whatever opinion you like a "fact", but in this particular case, your opinion is still just your opinion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macktheknifeau: - You keep repeating points that I'm not challenging. It doesn't matter if a topic is notable, well-written and well sourced. Advocacy can be well-written, notable, and sourced. It's still advocacy. Still soap-boxing.
re "still just your opinion" - Let's try to break this down into simple yes/no questions. Do you agree or disagree that the statement, "the media is biased against my candidate" is an example of advocacy? NickCT (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to hijack your 1-on-1, but I spent a while reading WP:Advocacy and it seemed to me that this article would only conform to that description were it that it's giving significant undue weight unto an opinion. Meanwhile, the author maintains that they had trouble finding "no, the media isn't biased against Sanders" sources – at least such that weren't immediately contested. So, it would appear that the coverage of content is reflective enough of existing content on the subject as to not be advocacy any more than is e.g. tabulating sources who are of/against the opinion that climate change is anthropogenic, and finding that the 'for' side outweighs the 'against'. I know the comparison here is far-reaching, but I tried to find one as relatable as possible to illustrate my point. Selvydra (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selvydra: - re "content is reflective enough of existing content" - Again, I'm not challenging that. That could be true. I'm simply trying to make a point about what is and is not appropriate as a WP article subject. I could write New England Patriots domination of American Football. It could be well sourced. Could be notable. Its coverage could be reflective of existing content. It's still advocacy. Still inappropriate. NickCT (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just wanted to know if you're aware of the article Tom Brady and Bill Belichick era, an article which is about the Patriots dominating the NFL in the last 20 years. So congratulations I guess, you just proved my point for me. Conversation over. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article would likely be a delete as well. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If non-Wikipedia editors are making new accounts specifically to make their voice heard in this debate, that is certainly unacceptable. However, making accusations against established editors, and suggesting that their opinion is less valid because they are supposedly "pro-Bernie", is a violation of WP:GF. There is nothing forbidding supporters of a political candidate from editing articles concerning said candidate, so long as their editing is NPOV. CompactSpacez (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Remember to assume good faith on the part of others" Slapbox (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia doesn't make decision by sheer weight of numbers. Why is it "disgusting" and "unethical" for the supporters of a Presidential candidate to take interest in pages relating to him on Wikipedia? I found it interesting that there is an allegation made on that reddit page that the person who made this deletion is active on an anti-sanders Reddit page that had posts about "how to make a deletion request", which would seem to indicate there is a level of bias from the person making this request, potentially making this AFD request one done in bad faith. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's disgusting and unethical because the article has been posted to NINE separate Reddit pages with the same implication that A.) this article is being taken down in some Wikipedia-led anti-Bernie conspiracy and B.) without shame attempting to rally Wikipedia users from those pages to come here and to weigh the conversation down on the side of keeping the article. It's Canvassing cut and dry.18Things (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's a major candidate for the US Presidency, one of the most important political positions in the history of the planet. A controversy involving wikipedia regarding him being posted on one other website (Reddit) is hardly a surprise, and not disgusting or unethical. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What controversy? The only controversy here is that there are numerous editors who have made few recent edits who are suddenly active and voting. If this doesn't scream canvassing then I don't know what does. — Chevvin 14:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every account you've linked to is at least 2 years old, with some going back as far as 2013 & 2009, as well as at a glance, being involved in similar topic editing previously. Being a semi-regular editor, or someone who only edits on their logged in account rarely, doesn't diminish their contributions to topics & discussions as long as they are making a good faith effort to involve themselves in the discussion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're completely ignoring the point. These are all old accounts who have stopped editing months, or even multiple years ago, and have suddenly decided to come back to respond to this AfD after there have been clear attempts on Reddit (and maybe other platforms) to canvas for the keeping of this article. Don't you think it's a little bit suspicious that they all suddenly came back with no relationship at all to the campaigning, votestacking, and stealth canvassing that has happened on this article? — Chevvin 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have noted all of the editors who all had inactive accounts and appeared again to join in this discussion as potentially canvassed. — Chevvin 15:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ONLY by pro-Bernie editors? :-/ Anyway, a simple mention that there's a controversy at Wikipedia isn't unethical and doesn't constitute canvassing. This AfD is targetting an article about an important topic, the high rate of participation isn't that unusual, imho. Gray62 (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article has already been posted to multiple Reddit pages asking for people to come here and tip the discussion in favor of keeping the article. Personally, I'm neutral on the topic but when people are writing things like "We really need some Wikipedia pros to keep the trolls from taking the page down. Considering the overlap in the type of people that support Wikipedia and Bernie, that shouldn't be too hard," there may be an issue. It would explain the sockpuppeting going on this particular talk page as well.18Things (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chevvin: I particularly don't edit much anymore, nor do I focus on political articles. I was always interested in doing Pro wrestling articles. Would you consider me in that category because I don't show a particular interest in politics through my edits? Now after you answer that, take into account I have a BA in Political Science, a BA in Paralegal Science, a BA in International and Applied Economics, and a Masters in Applied Economics. Obviously there is an interest in politics in my mind. So, editing habits don't show interest or knowledge for a subject. Just shows that a person isn't interested in creating content for that subject. Most editors are active on subjects that are a hobby to them. Editing is also based on time. I was busy with previously mentioned that I didn't have the time to stay consistently active. While you are mentioning canvassing, I find it highly unusual that you have linked to a particular editor who has been spotlighted on an anti-Sanders reddit thread about this very topic. Perhaps there is a canvassing activity being conducted elsewhere.WillC 18:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wrestlinglover: I would not consider you to be canvassed because you have a recent history of edits, unlike some of the accounts which haven't had a previous edit since 2013. As far as the canvassing from the anti-Bernie side, I agree that it shouldn't have been done, but as far as I can tell there aren't any blatant examples of canvassing on the delete side other than Miadtkt, who I have noted as a potential SPA. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would assume good faith and not accuse me of canvassing, which I promise you I have not. — Chevvin 18:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chevvin: I'd assume good faith, but it is also highly suspect and unusually for an editor to link to the exact same page as a screenshot regarding this very page and user. Your accusation is the high number of individuals coming here are being canvassed. That I can agree on. There are pro-Sanders crowd coming but also an anti-Sanders crowd coming. Several of the Delete votes all have the same reasoning without being able to justify that reasoning. Some I'd find bias, especially any that call people in the campaign as hacks. That suggests an inability to identify what NPOV even is. The problem with canvassing is it is bad for the person that does it. Anyone that comes in from it, we are supposed to have good faith like you claim. Canvassing is a giant issue over at WT:PW and was for years because of WP:Jargon and WP:IN-U. What we did was argue with them and show they are only there to support the topic due to that bias. Do the same here. Create an actual argument that is justified and correct per policy. Trying to discredit people just because you suspect they are here for that isn't good faith. So far, the PLOT and SOAP arguments are kind of hollow because people aren't reading the actual article.WillC 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wrestlinglover: I don't find it particularly unusual for multiple people to notice that inactive accounts have suddenly become active again, and to make an assumption that that Redditor and I are the same person is a massive leap. I understand that there is canvassing on both sides, but it is hard to tell who is being canvassed and who is not. The notes I left aren't used to discredit their arguments but rather to point out that these are comments left by accounts who I suspect were canvassed. As for the the article itself, the article is certainly better at addressing the NPOV concerns than before, but still falls victim to the problem of having all of the information detailing the alleged bias against Sanders, leaving all of the criticism in its own topic at the end of the article, a practice that is widely discouraged. Overall, I agree that the topic might be notable enough for its own article, but I feel the only way to fix this article is to simply TNT and start over. — Chevvin 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see any reasonable argument for TNT at this point. I'll agree on a name change. Perhaps to Allegations of Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaigns. As for the article itself, a simple peer review could change any issues it faces. Merging the criticism section into the article would be simple enough based on topic and timeline of the subjects mentioned. TNT on the otherhand, would mean just redoing the already included information. To do any worthwhile editing could only happen after an agreement regarding issues here have been put forth. So far there are statements regarding NPOV, PLOT, and SOAP but very little action towards detailing what these actually are.WillC 20:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That vandal has been blocked for three months. A harsh sentence, but he knew he was doing wrong. Gray62 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@C.J. Griffin: I voted "keep" above, but I would support a move of the article to Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders in order to avoid any hint of WP:NPOV. In fact, a lot of the hubbub surrounding this article could probably be avoided with a slightly more neutral title like this. I find the current arguments for deleting the article altogether as specious, though, considering the massive amount of research and sheer volume of Wikipedia:Reliable sources cited in it. The article presents a clear pattern of news organizations discussing bias against Bernie in mainstream media, over a number of years and different election cycles. That certainly satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability at the least. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am suspecting all accounts who were inactive for periods of time who came back to join the discussion, regardless of their position. The fact that most of them are in favor of keeping the article speaks to the canvassing done by pro-Bernie supporters rather than any inherent bias. — Chevvin 18:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is also unusual for editors to point to the same accounts being featured on reddit threads ridiculing this topic.WillC 18:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chevvin: – This seems like a way of generating many false positives, and disqualifying their opinions in readers' eyes (even though, as per the blurb at the top of this page, their arguments are still supposedly welcomed). Many of the flagged 'keep' proponents could be non-editing users of Wikipedia, while some 'delete' and 'merge' supporters could be members of the anti-Sanders reddit community with a history of tendentious editing activity that defends their PoV. I recognize at least one editor here by name with such a history. The community in question is known on political Reddit for having a highly active base for its size. Thus, it's hard to believe that no more than one flagged person (last time I checked) was canvassed by the anti-Sanders community. This entire AfD may have been started by the them, as they claimed to have flagged it for deletion (in since-deleted discussion).
Rather than placing a 'potential canvassee' disclaimer after every inactive editor and non-editor (an outsize retaliation to an aesthetic problem in votestacking), I would suggest simply having a general disclaimer at the top of the page, acknowledging that posts have been made in pro- and anti-Sanders communities (feeling free to stress that more of them are in pro-communities). Particularly so as this is to be evaluated on the merit of arguments and not the number of people for or against, anyway. If nothing else, the blurb at the top should be changed to something to the tune of "If you were canvassed here, stay out or risk being used to worsen the optics for your side of the argument." Selvydra (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source 1 - Azcolvin commented "Shocking! Mainstream media spinning a false narrative!"
Source 2 Azcolvin commented "As side note, Pete represents the gay man of the young gay rights movement—conservative, corporate, establishment, and heteronormative. I find it disgraceful that the LBGT community would support him over someone like Bernie. Period."
Source 3 Azcolvin commented "It seems like our current electorate doesn’t know what the fuck to do and who to chose. It’s clearly Bernie, but I think being overwhelmed by choice is causing these stupid shifts and trends. It’s time the losers drop out."
Source 4 Azcolvin429 admits to publishing the article on his reddit account.
None of the sources above are meant to be antagonistic, nor are they meant to suggest the editor is editing out of malicious intent. However, I do not believe this article was created in good faith and should be deleted summarily per WP:Soap and WP:COICAMPAIGN WP:Advocacy. Besides a deletion, I would also support the article title being moved to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" per WP:POVNAMING. Auror Andrachome (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any evidence the article creator is part of the Bernie campaign staff? Accusing someone of being a WP:COICAMPAIGN staffer is a serious accusation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies. WP:Advocacy would be a better page to describe the current situation. Auror Andrachome (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Advocacy doesn't work here for the state of the current article. It doesn't include baseless claims that are not verified nor is it pushing a specific agenda. Everything listed in the article at this time has a citation by a reliable source, including the very topic of a alleged media bias. Per advocacy: "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy." The article passes verifability. Any NPOV claims haven't been substantiated. Just referred to but not specifically pointed out in order to be addressed. This article also does not promote a belief, agenda, is activism, recruitment, promotion, announcing, or advertising anything. Perhaps at one point it may have, but in its current state advocacy does not fit this article. It is sourced and a verified topic of discussion going on in national politics.WillC 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately there are plenty of people who will find excuses that amount to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Sometimes the truth hurts, but its still the truth. Wikipedia is here to present the truth. But those offended by that will fight fervently to alter reality to suit their precious feelings. That will mangle the content of the article, it already has. It will become yet another vandalism magnet. And it will cause constant attacks like this AfD. Trackinfo (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • The general discussion here has focused on a number of policies. Some of which I don't think actually apply to the article in its current state and that needs to be addressed. Several complaints have come about due to WP:NPOV, but an issue with that is specific allegations aren't being made. A conflict of interest can arise by simply having a preconceived view of the subject matter to begin with. So for NPOV to stand outside of issues with the article title, they need to be specifically addressed. An individual who doesn't believe there is a media bias is going to view the subject in a negative light to begin with so it is going to come off as not having a neutral tone. Particularly, where in the article is it listing opinions as facts, stating assertions as facts, stating facts as opinions, uses judgmental language, or gives undue weight to the subject? The only of these it could fit at this time from my examination is undue weight but may not be due to intention but due to few articles discussing the matter in depth to cover it for the article. Limitations of available material is always an issue in the area I've primarily functioned. Notability has been discussed, but that is determined primarily by verifiability. Which has been accomplished through the citations available. Which at this time include roughly 54 citations on the subject in some relatable manner. I'd suggest those questioning notability examine WP:NEXIST before continuing to question.
  • WP:SOAP has also been invoked. Which I find a highly hollow argument based on viewpoint and not on sources or the article itself. This article is not advocating for there being a bias, it simply covers the topic of a potential bias. It is not propaganda nor is it an actual recruitment tool for a "movement". At this stage, it is an article to cover an issue being covered that has roughly 2.3 million hits when searched. At initial creation it may have been used as a recruitment tool, but articles are imperfect and can be improved. Which this has and no longer satisfies being a recruitment tool. It isn't an opinion piece full of Original Research. It isn't promoting scandal mongering through use of rumors. It isn't a commissioned piece by the Sanders campaign to be self-promotion. It also isn't an advertising or marketing tool by the campaign either. There are verified references that detail this is a discussed issue that has gone back to 2016. Some instances are more cited than others. The notability has been established above. SOAP does not have a valid argument as this article in its current state does not violate any of the points listed. The references herein are also of standard quality it appears. Very few I'd question as being anything but mostly reliable. They range in publication as well. Some of these sources may have a bias but under WP:BIASED itself, it isn't a requirement to be unbiased to be a reliable source. Particularly what has been troubling for me is the removal of some sources while, yes being self-published, were removed due to the website site they were published on and not for the criteria therein self published sources regarding being experts on the matter per WP:SELFPUB. There isn't any evidence of research into whether the authors were experts or not. To me, this suggests editors not being WP:BOLD enough to check thoroughly.
  • WP:POVFORK was mentioned, but I don't see how that is relevant here. I can see and understand the argument for WP:FRINGE but notability and verifiability has already been established. NPOV is the only issue and those claims haven't been verified or identified yet. So FRINGE isn't satisfied either. WP:POVNAMING is a valid concern. I agree with that. As for the canvassing issues mentioned. Any new editors we should be wary of their statements, we should assume WP:GF but at the same time understand that this discussion can be hijacked to either direction as there has been information related to this topic posted on pro-Sanders and anti-Sanders boards. Any new editors or random ips unfamiliar with wikipedia are most likely going to fall into the WP:LIKE and WP:IDL territories. This article passes WP:SPINOFF because the issue covers both campaigns and not just one, which would create undue weight problems in those articles by having to focus on the history as a whole. Would be better to center the subject into this article to cover the entire history. Also, can be expandable with more content as it becomes available or found by experienced editors. A large problem with complaints here is that the article has problems that need to be fixed and that it should be WP:TNT. These complaints all basically fall into WP:SURMOUNTABLE. This article can be improved and instead of being improved, editors just want to start over when already a viable product exists. Also, lets not forget articles are WP:IMPERFECT. Meanwhile, other arguments are about this being the tipping point to a handful of other articles being created. I understand this problem as recently the Kamala Harris crowd is claiming media bias against her which I personally find extremely extremely extremely laughable. However, just because we think other articles may pop up, doesn't mean that is a valid excuse. WP:WHATABOUTX voices against this type of argument.WillC 09:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wrestlinglover:, notwithstanding the strengths and weaknesses of your argument, I feel it would aid your reasoning if you inserted a number of paragraph breaks. I'm no stranger to walls of text, but they're best to avoid whenever possible. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Agreed. I hadn't planned on it being so large. I've added alterations.WillC 13:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may not like it, but Wikipedia cannot control, as much as it thinks it can, how people outside of the platform interact with a website that allows anyone to edit it. The canvass claim is nonsense and so is the policy. Part of consensus involves the inclusion of interested parties. And anyways Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. All these policies make Wikipedia an increasingly more ridiculous platform for collaboration. It's no wonder there are so few quality editors anymore—just bored wannabe-bureaucrats running amok. But I digress. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 16:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The canvass claim is nonsense," says the person with multiple pieces of evidence showing attempts at canvassing. — Chevvin 17:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chevvin: – The adversarial tone is uncalled for. As has already been established on here, the author posted the article out *before* the anti-Sanders reddit community flagged it for AfD. The author called for contributions to the article itself. That does not comprise WP:CANVASSING, which relates to discussions and was (to the best of my knowledge) only done by others *after* AfD was begun, likely not knowing about WP rules and just taking the "add your comments here" for granted. You can't pin any goings-on in the AfD discussion (and so the canvassing) on the author. Selvydra (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People making complaints is notable when the media has discussed it at great length for months. It's obviously notable by the shear number of sources that can be found discussing it. And other candidates could complain and do, but there has been little discussion in media about the issue. Notability is almost perfectly correlated with source volume. Just because you don't like the fact that there are allegations of media bias does not mean it does not exist and should not be an article. It is very clear the phenomenon should be documented and it is a duty of Wikipedia to document the truth. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 16:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chevvin: Do you see anything odd about this ElAnimalSalvaje's contribution history?WillC 16:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wrestlinglover: Yes, and I have marked them as such. Were you expecting a different response? — Chevvin 17:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chevvin: I hadn't even thought of what you'd respond. Just wanted to point out the issue of canvassing is coming from both directions. Cause this is an obvious case of it. Less than 100 total edits and then suddenly after 5 years of no edits popping up to say this needs to be deleted. Very random.WillC 05:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It would be nice to compile all instances of canvassing attempts off-site in one location just so we can try to grasp the magnitude and balance of it. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That guy looks like a cross between Jon Lennon and a coked up Charles Manson lost in the woods trying to pick berries out of a bee hive. He really just hurt himself on trying to do any harm to this page.WillC 05:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Σ: – To my knowledge (to those reading this: please add if I've missed something), the history of linking to this article is as follows: 1) The author puts up the article and invites people on Reddit to contribute sources / corrections / etc. (this is prior to any AfD). 2) An anti-Sanders community posts it on their subreddit and figured out how to flag the article for deletion. 3) Others linked the resulting AfD page to pro-Sanders pages. 4) Anti-Sanders community posts another topic regarding the AfD page. 5) Finally, this anti-Sanders Youtuber makes a video about the article and links to its talk page. Selvydra (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selvydra: Something to that affect seems valid. This whole thing is basically a mess due to it.WillC 13:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of how one feels about the subject at hand, it is a bit out of bounds to suggest a living person resembles a drug addict and a mass murderer. Per WP:BLP, it may be wise to redact that. ValarianB (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ValarianB: BLP deals with adding information to an article. My comment was in reference to a Youtube video/propaganda piece created by an individual encouraging people to commit vandalism here. My statement was mostly a joke, but if I have to defend it as a reasonable comment I'd say it falls in line. Afterall Lennon's music was propaganda because it contained a message to his fans/followers. Manson believed in a message from said music and got it totally wrong. He then used his own propaganda to tempt fans/followers to commit malicious acts. However extreme, it makes sense logically. Although, it was a joke at the expense of someone wanting to cause us problems and make this situation even more difficult than it already is. Not sure there is a policy that falls in line for ridiculing an actual troll.--WillC 20:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP covers every corner of the Wikipedia project. You cannot libel a living person here, be it article space or project or discussion space. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Libel isn't valid in satire cases. My comment as mentioned previously was a joke from the start. So it isn't defamation or libelous. Meanwhile, BLP wouldn't cover it because it isn't defamation nor was my statement ever to be taken as fact. Seems like a weird hill for one to wish to die on.--WillC 21:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selvydra: I would like to disagree with this history - for starters don't accuse @Buggie111: of being a canvasser without any evidence as you did in the second point. You are grossly underestimating the amount of canvassers who came in from the pro-Sanders side vs. the anti-Sanders side (by my counts, there have been 2 obvious anti-Sanders canvassers compared to the 10+ pro-Sanders canvassers I have tagged). To suggest that the anti-Sanders side is doing more of the canvassing like you are suggesting in your history (3/5 are about anti-Sanders canvassers while 1/5 is about pro-Sanders canvassing) is straight out misinformation. If this isn't enough, one look at the talk page and all of the SPAs commenting keep should convince you that most of the canvassing is coming from the pro-Sanders side. — Chevvin 14:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chevvin: – All I meant to convey with 2) is that they were discussing flagging the article for deletion. Beyond that, I wasn't aware of whose actions actually started the AfD. As for the canvassees (I'm assuming that's what you meant by 'canvassers' – the people invited here, not the inviters), that's you tagging them based on a lack of history in editing. As I argued here earlier, it is a flawed metric (not saying there necessarily are better ones) that blanket-flags all non-editing or inactive users of Wikipedia as being canvassed, even if they occurred here by visiting Wikipedia and not from social media. I'm guessing more pro-Sanders people were still canvassed, but the ratio might not be nearly as steep as 5:1. Selvydra (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are not 54 sources in the article. There are currently 47, and most of those are op-eds by progressives or punditry by pro-Sanders pundits. To what extent there is RS coverage, it's to cover what the Sanders campaign is saying (in the same way that every single narrative put forth by a campaign will be covered) and then to broadly examine media bias. For example, the best source in this article is the Shorenstein Center report on media coverage in the 2016 election, and it's about media coverage of all the candidates. The content that currently exists on this page is for the most part so low-quality and so padded that whatever good content exists here could easily be summarized on the Sanders main article in 3 or 4 sentences. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ValarianB: I'd say a Trump bias article would look entirely different. This is more about the slant portrayal of Sanders, wanting him to look like a fringe candidate that has a select base and downplaying his chances. While a Trump article would include something similar but would be more about the media's attempt ridicule him while giving him above average or even extreme amount of coverage. Would I'd say is a bias while the other is more of a coverage issue.--WillC 20:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irrelevant point. WP:Other. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • May I ask which sources would convince you that this phenomenon is notable? CNN reporting that NBC is biased and NBC reporting that CNN is biased? So far, we have the next best thing which is people who used to work for MSNBC alleging that they were under pressure to minimize the Sanders campaign. Biased sources are reliable in certain contexts. And one of those contexts is the one visible now — sources with different types of left-wing or right-wing biases all converging to the same opinion, making it much less likely to be WP:FRINGE. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see nothing in the article about former MSNBC people saying they were pressured to minimize the Sanders campaign. Where does NBC say CNN is biased against Sanders and vice versa? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It may have been removed; I didn't check. This may not be the exact source that was used, but Krystal Ball, formerly at MSNBC, has been very clear about it on her show at The Hill. (Shockingly enough, the WP article reiterates some of the points she makes.)
CNN reporting that NBC is biased and NBC reporting that CNN is biased? That was a joke, because the odds of that ever happening are less than zero. Hence, the next best thing: a former MSNBC reporter testifying to being pressured to minimise the Sanders campaign. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to watch a 7 minute video to maybe hear a pro-Sanders pundit say that the media is biased against her favorite candidate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, Snoogans. 👍 →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pulling a "too long didn't read" meme when someone presents a citation to back up their assertion is not a good look for you, I must say. ValarianB (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please point out where in the video "people who used to work for MSNBC alleging that they were under pressure to minimize the Sanders campaign". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, I find it hilarious to be honoured by the unattributed quotation above. Second, you don't have to look at the video. If Ball and Schultz had made reports about the bias while they still worked at NBC, they would be hailed as respected journalists informing the public. But of course, they were a few days late which makes them pundits spewing conspiracy theories. /s Connor Behan (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ball and Schultz are not reporters. Just as Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and other pundits who work for MSNBC are not reporters. If this editor is unable to distinguish punditry from news reporting, then the close of this AfD should judge this editor's vote accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You keep using the word punditry but you must have forgotten the definition: "the expression of expertise in a particular subject or field." Now, tell me where in WP:RS, sources by pundits are unreliable. Cause I just read it and as below, it doesn't say they are.--WillC 20:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is your argument now that people who appear on TV must be recognized experts? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you now saying they aren't? You've been using that term to describe them this entire time. Are you now saying they aren't pundits? Let me guess, you thought the term meant something else.--WillC 21:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A pundit isn't necessarily an expert. Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones are not experts on the stuff they talk about just because they get invited onto platforms to give their opinion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying that Ball and Schultz are reliable in this context due to some research or scholarship about campaign coverage. It's because they worked at MSNBC and had access to internal discussions. Connor Behan (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No that is literally the definition of punditry, an expert. Milo and Jones can't be pundits if they aren't experts. So the problem here isn't the definition, the problem here is you are using the word wrong. You've been trying to call people pundits as a means of classifying them as unreliable when in fact you've been making an argument they are experts and thus are reliable. Or funnily, you've been arguing because they are experts they aren't reliable. You've yet to list a policy that makes them unreliable other than your desire for them to be unreliable.--WillC 22:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The claims made in this edit are deceptive: (1) This is not an academic book by an academic publisher, (2) Per the index, Sanders is mentioned twice in the whole book: once where it notes that Cruz, Rubio, Clinton and Sanders all combined received less coverage than Trump during a certain period, and an attributed claim to a comedian who works for Russian state propaganda claiming that Sanders won the first Democratic debate in 2016. So, to conclude, to what extent this book substantiates that "Media bias against Sanders is a notable topic", there should be similar articles for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do you think you can disagree with me without posting a personal attack? There is no requirement that reliable sources be academic textbooks. You should know that because almost all the sources you use are news reports and columns. Your next claim is also baseless. If no similar articles have been written about other candidates, the solution is not necessarily to delete this one. Why don't you create an article about media bias against Hillary Clinton? TFD (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Why don't you create an article about media bias against Hillary Clinton?" I have already explained why this kind of content does not deserve standalone articles. I'd vote the same in a AfD discussion on "Media bias against Clinton/Trump/Rubio/Cruz", but I'm incredibly doubtful that the majority of "Keep" votes in this thread (excluding the blatantly canvassed votes) would stick to the principles that they express here and vote the same way in hypothetical AfD discussions for other politicians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The fact that Bernie Sanders supporters see this article as a great overview of media bias against Sanders (even though RS do not at all support the notion that there is media bias against Sanders) and are sending people in droves to defend it is indicative of what a horrible article this is. Imagine if this article actually reflected what RS say, which is that Sanders has generally received the most positive coverage of any candidate and that the amount of coverage he's received is generally consistent with how he's polling, then these same people would call for the article to be deleted. This whole article is just a thinly veiled campaign ad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A RS was presented to you to show an actual bias along with all of the sources present in the article and you rejected them because you basically said you were above looking at them. Lets not forget, this discussion is also being featured in Anti-Sanders circles having the same issues.--WillC 02:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Are you referring to a 7 minute YouTube video where a pro-Sanders pundit gave her opinion that the media wasn't portraying her favorite candidate like she would want them to? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Snooganssnoogans, reliable sources support the fact that there is media bias against Sanders and media sources have defended their bias. I think you are hurting your side by denying bias instead of presenting their reasons for it: Sanders and his policies present a threat to the U.S. in your opinion and the role of the media and Wikipedia editors is to prevent him from becoming president. TFD (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The closer of this AfD should judge the vote by this editor by the mind-set that they demonstrate: "Sanders and his policies present a threat to the U.S. in your opinion and the role of the media and Wikipedia editors is to prevent him from becoming president." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Hill is a reliable source along with Krystal Ball. A source can be bias in this instance and still be RS. Infact, the policy even says that is the best source for this type of situation.--WillC 04:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • News articles published by the Hill are RS. Op-eds and punditry on the Hill are not RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." WP:PARTISAN: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Now you were saying about them not being RS? Cause it seems RS says you are wrong and they are perfectly fine for this exact type of article.--WillC 13:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The closer of this AfD should judge this editor's vote on the basis that this user is incapable of distinguishing op-eds from news reporting (it's clearly relevant given that the article under consideration for deletion is primarily based around op-eds). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sigh, if you are going to comment at least read the RS policies because NEWSORG directly mentions opinion pieces and it is saying they are reliable. Hence why I directly mentioned the part about opinion content. You are just grasping for straws now. You haven't been able to nullify the RS of these sources and have been using words in arguments that you didn't even know what the words meant.--WillC 22:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Debenedetti, Gabriel (2018-04-22). "Bernie Sanders Is Quietly Building a Digital Media Empire". New York Magazine. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  • DeCosta-Klipa, Nik (2016-06-14). "This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media". Boston.com. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  • Frank, Thomas (November 2016). "Swat Team". Harper's Magazine. ISSN 0017-789X. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  • Golshan, Tara (2019-08-14). "Bernie Sanders versus the "corporate media," explained". Vox. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  • Specter, Emma (2019-11-08). "Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Candidate. Why Aren't More People Talking About Him?". Vogue. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  • Sullivan, Margaret (2015-09-09). "Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
Note that this is independent, third-party coverage covering the phenomenon; i.e., not including anything that could be construed as manufactured coverage (stories designed to repeat/amplify campaign narratives). So an editor can build a dedicated encyclopedia article on this topic based on these sources alone. (4) Yes, it needs a new title. Yes, the article needs work, particularly so it isn't written in dateline. Yet no, AfD is not cleanup.
czar 09:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, that's Noam Chomsky and that's his opinion. A self-described socialist who has for a long time argued that the media is biased against socialism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More