Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (4th nomination)

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

The result was keep. Consensus is keep, perhaps a merge is possible, but that can be discussed outside AfD. Tone 08:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia politics spans thousands of years. Not only was Bernie never nominated, there doesn't seem to be many unusual controversies, aside from a couple coverage disputes. Compared to human history as a whole, his campaign just wasn't that controversial. Many voters simply disagreed with his ideas. Atdevel (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge with Bernie Sanders, and/or 2016 campaign, and/or 2020 campaign. While the nominator's rationale is vague and a bit difficult to parse, this monstrosity has been a blatant WP:NPOV WP:POVFORK from the very beginning. The entire concept of the article is laughable, and the topic has received no sustaining coverage since Sanders lost the primary. I think the article would've been deleted ages ago if it weren't for the IP and SPA activity in prior discussions. KidAd talk 23:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A rather large number people participated earlier this year in an AFD for this. Nothing has changed. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this, so it passes the general notability guidelines, just as it did the previous times it went to AFD. Dream Focus 02:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources give significant coverage to this. A two-part rebuttal:

(1) Many many things gets significant coverage in a presidential election. If a campaign screams "the media is biased", it will often get reported by someone. Every election also has meta pieces about "media coverage" and "media bias" mentioning many candidates. For example, the best sources in this article are academic books and reports which cover media coverage in general and mention many presidential candidates.

(2) There is not significant coverage about this subject beyond what could easily be covered in one paragraph in the Bernie Sanders bio and 2-3 paragraphs in the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign pages. The high-quality sourcing in this article is primarily about media coverage in general during the 2016 campaign, with sources covering Sanders as much as they cover Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich, and far less than they cover Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The only reason why a specific Sanders page was created was because "the media is against Sanders" became a popular refrain among Sanders supporters and his campaign, which conservatives then latched onto to justify their own hatred of the media and/or to sow discord among Democrats. On the basis of "significant coverage", similar articles could be created for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Gary Johnson because those candidates all made similar claims about media bias which were covered by reliable sources. There are probably more high-quality RS that cover Rubio and Cruz's grievances during the 2016 campaign. None of these politicians merit a unique "Media coverage of X" article because their grievances can easily be covered in 1-2 paragraphs in larger general articles, just as the Sanders campaign's can. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY, the same reasons I gave when nominating this article for deletion in January: Bernie Sanders is still the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is the only person in the world for whom this is the case. This article was started as a WP:POVFORK asserting that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is still a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable fact. Some of this content could be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed to the point where I have stopped editing the page. --WMSR (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I firmly reject the premise of the nomination. This is a notable subject. That said, in the previous AfD, I advocated for the removal of this version of the article because it was politically hijacked by WP:AGENDA people to turn it into the dismissive article it currently is. If you read the article, only one side is being presented. It is so non-sensical to repeatedly say "there is nothing to see here folks" when the details and depth of the allegations they are defending against are not presented. You "doth protest too much, methinks" We should have a proper article about the Bernie Blackout. I always advocate for retention of valid content, however I do not like wikipedia hosting incorrect information. This version of the article removed a large amount of content that previously told the story. It is now incomplete, distorted and thus incorrect information. Trackinfo (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election or a similar article. Per WP:NOT: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. US presidential elections get enormous, saturation-volume media coverage and even minor details would be sufficient to pass the GNG, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on them. Taking a longer view I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to be nearly significant enough to justify this kind of treatment. While he's an influential figure now, he's also a US Senator known for unsuccessfully seeking the Democratic presidential nomination twice, and I don't think he will be widely remembered, say, fifty years from now. Imagine how people would feel about an article on, say, Media coverage of George McGovern. I also think it's significant that this article consists almost entirely of statements some person or group has made about media coverage of Bernie Sanders, referenced to the place where those statements were made. The coverage apparently doesn't allow building a narrative, as opposed to a series of isolated quotes. Hut 8.5 07:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any truly revelant portions to the article on Senator Sanders. There is no reason for this content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If only because I see little reason to delete and it is still kind of topical, maybe after the election if things quiet down, could do a merge.Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ WP:HARMLESS. Time to stop putting this off. Sanders’ role in this election ended months ago. KidAd talk 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator appears a single purpose account, one shouldn't follow recommendations from them or supporters of such accounts.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election- same arguments as Hut 8.5 Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources to establish notability. I found for example on the first page of a google search for media coverage bernie sanders:

"The media keep falling in love — with anybody but Bernie Sanders" (Washington Post)

"What Bernie Sanders Gets Right About the Media" (New York Times]])

"Coverage of Bernie Sanders suffers from a lack of imagination" (Columbia Journalism Review)

"Bernie Sanders versus the “corporate media,” explained" (Vox Media)

"Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?" {GQ)

Also a podcast with FiveThirtyEight and articles in In These Times, the Pointer Report and Jacobin (magazine)

TFD (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is composed from opinion quotes. All the others are about Bernie's view of the media, not about media coverage of him. Atdevel (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the articles outline how Sanders has been covered in the media and include comments about the coverage by Sanders supporters, journalists and media observers. There is general agreement on the facts presented, and differing opinions on the reasons. TFD (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had it just been a talking point during the 2020 campaign, it would have been one thing, but it was the same during the 2016 campaign too. There are ample sources discussing the Bernie Blackout phenomena ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and even a full-length documentary ([6]). The topic is unquestionably notable. ImTheIP (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article for the documentary would make sense, but this would be very different from the current article. Relative historical significance should be taken into account in assessing importance, and Bernie didn't even get the nomination once, which simply increases the chance for being president. Atdevel (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up the Bernie Blackout documentary, it's actually more about his campaign in general than media coverage https://www.al.com/life/2020/05/alabama-filmmaker-how-we-made-our-bernie-sanders-doc.html Atdevel (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was a major part of the 2020 primaries and nature / bias in media coverage of the various candidates has been a significant topic // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This bias has continued throughout 2020, after 2016. --K. Peake 07:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Continues to be a significant aspect. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a significant aspect of Sander's political bids.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV exists to reference media coverage of these high profile political bids. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant amount of info and all well referenced. Why delete? Wiki is a tool to gain knowledge and do research. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[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.