Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 16

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion discussion was closed as "no consensus," when it probably should have been closed as "delete." Despite the vote count slightly favoring keep (13-18), consensus is not a vote and the arguments in favor of deletion were far stronger than the arguments for keeping it (against deletion). This article has been nominated three times and there has been canvassing for votes in favor of keeping the article. However, many of the "keep" votes offer underdeveloped points, make off-topic or opinionated analysis, or are conclusory without support in sources. I believe an objective third opinion here is necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interaction that I believe exemplifies the point I made above. This is taken from the last discussion. The editor arguing against makes valid points for deletion and notes the dearth of coverage in objective sources. The editor responding, who voted keep, misses the distinction being pointed out between objective news articles and op-eds, and seems to suggest the editor arguing for deletion is merely voting delete over a "content disagreement."

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Delete - I should also point out several problems with this article. It doesn't cover any year before 2015. Apparently, Bernie served for decades in Congress before there was suddenly any bias, which magically appeared in 2015. There were articles published about him like "The Socialist Senator". Additionally, there is no mention about articles which talk about how a significant portion of his supporters attack other people online. Finally, notable coverage in 2020 is insignificant, it seems. Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders#2020_primary_campaign

None of those things would make the article notable however, as most of it is not highly significant. — Ylevental (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders wasn't a presidential candidate, before 2015. Thus the reason he got little to no national negative coverage. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Delete - In addition to all of the cases I made in the original deletion discussion, it's worth pointing out again that this article is a clear WP:POVFORK. Editors who voted against deletion all expressed the same POV: that Sanders is the subject of some kind of conspiracy by the media. Saying that there are numerous sources when nearly all of them are op-eds is misleading at best, and several of the oppose votes were just personal attacks against me or anger that the article was being re-AfD'd (previous nom ended the same way, without consensus). --WMSR (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Delete - In addition to the above, it's clear that there was WP:CANVAS going on (judging from the offsite notification, the arguments made by the 'keep' participants, etc. "Not a ballot" belonged on this page, both as a reminder to users hearing about the AfD, but to admins as well that such activity was going on and that should be factored into the consensus. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Point of Order - I believe the 3 editors above have used the wrong statement. 'Endorse' is support of the Closer decision. The substance of the comments conflicts with that. Slywriter (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Options are relist, delete, or endorse. Seems like the above editors are "endorsing deletion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I personally support Delete. Ylevental (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: on a point of order, there are technically just two options - endorse or overturn. Within overturn though, you would usually stipulate which of the usual AFD outcomes to overturn to. That includes Relist, Delete, Keep, No consensus, Redirect, Merge, Move. Obviously in this case you can't overturn to "no consensus" as that was the closer's decision, but any of the others are available, including "keep", which means you think there was an active consensus for that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I've struck my comment so as not to cause any confusion. I think that this discussion actually includes a number of "merge" votes if we consider than an option. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. That discussion could not be closed as "delete", not even close. See advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RENOM is not policy. That page contains recommendations, not requirements. In addition, the problems that afflicted the last discussion were also endemic to the first and second. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to my sympathies, but a horrid mess of a discussion like that, with very weak !votes on both sides, cannot be massaged into a consensus to delete. If you like, you can have my sympathy.

The nominator makes a very weak nomination. A number of statements that don't go to deletion. The string "seems to have" in a nomination statement is a sure sign of an inadequate deletion rationale. The nominator needs to be sure of his facts. "Some of this content may be merged ..." is a technical reason to not delete, see WP:MAD. "is far from encyclopedic" and NPOV issues usually are fixed by editing, not deletion. "my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed" is a statement implying a need for dispute resolution. WP:AfD is not a good forum for dispute resolution.

A click on the AfD google link gives two strong notability-attesting sources, 1 & 2.

I advise you to read the advice at WP:RENOM. If you still think this needs deletion, then slow down, and write a better deletion rationale for a new AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a poor job at summarizing the rationale behind the deletion arguments, which are 1) that this article is primarily a WP:POVFORK giving superfluous, short-shrift to opposing views and 2) that this is not a significant enough topic to warrant a spinoff article. The two sources you provided discussing Sander's media coverage are case in point: both are second-tier outlets at best, Inquisitor and Boston.com, warranting at most a brief mention in the main page, not a spinoff article. The rest of the sources included in this page, which is at the same time relatively short but and lacking in much substance, are roughly on par with those, and primarily opinion editorials. Opinion editorials do not carry weight for notability because they are the opinion of a single person.

As for the discussion itself, the arguments in favor of deletion, show far more grounding in policy and careful analysis of sources. The arguments against deletion, almost as if they had been the result of canvassing, offer little-to-no rationale other than declarative statements of "notability," despite the fact that there are few reliable sources on this matter to provide factual information. This has nothing to do with any form of dispute resolution other than those offered by WP:AFD review, and given the problems apparent in both deletion discussion, disregarding the suggested guidelines in WP:RENOM seems appropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a poor job at summarizing the rationale. That is my skim reading of the AfD nomination statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You note the "dearth of coverage in objective sources", except there is no such thing as "objective media" (most so-called "reliable" sources are corporate-owned and profit-driven). CompactSpacez (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can guess where this one is going. This is not the place for socio-political arguments about the media. The distinction is between objective news reporting, which involve the discretion of paper editorial boards, and op-eds, which reflect the opinion of a single person. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse the closest thing to consensus here is that the article needs fixing. It might need protecting (I'll leave it to people who understand our protection rules and the state of the article better) from partisan editors. But there was no consensus, numeric or policy-based, for deletion that I can see. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the "merge" side had it, on the strength of the arguments. But I won't fault the close as "no consensus". That's what we tell sysops to do when there isn't a consensus, so it seems harsh to give them grief when they follow the instructions.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in part. You make a reasonable point about rules admins are subject to, but when one side's arguments are noticeably stronger, and there's evidence of canvassing for keeping, I think policy permits -- and perhaps requires -- that that side be considered to have formed the consensus. Votes can be misleading and don't carry much weight, esp. in closure discussions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From the large number of times you've posted in this discussion, I would tend to suspect that you might be very concerned about the outcome. It's up to you, but I do suggest that you consider not replying quite so much.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - It would've been a good idea to include more of a closing statement, but I think most admins would probably close it as no consensus. Merge still seems like the strongest argument to me, and few people addressed why it needs a stand-alone article, but I wouldn't say there's consensus for that (indeed only a couple people explicitly advocated for it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure as No Consensus. The only real question seems to be whether to trout the appellant. The appellant seems to be arguing that the closer was obligated to supervote and delete, and that the closer erred somehow in recognizing the Keep arguments. If that is what the appellant is saying, then the appellant either is demanding that the closer supervote, or is re-litigating. If the appellant is saying something else, then they need to re-explain what the else is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address this briefly because it's directed at me and is a misrepresentation. 1) Nowhere do I suggest that the closer was "obligated" to "supervote." The closer is obligated to make a decision based on the strength of the arguments, not tally votes. I do not believe this policy was followed here. The "keep" votes are cursory and in many cases follow arguments that are textbook arguments to avoid on deletion discussions. The votes to keep are more in-depth and offer an analysis of sources. See above for specifics. 2) The purpose of an AFD review is to request the review of an admin's closure. Doing so is not trouting or "re-litigating" (pejorative). It is a valid use of process. WP:AGF. So far, two of the "endorse" votes have taken to attacking me personally rather than honestly addressing the arguments by myself and others above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as no consensus. I noted early on that one of the editors questioned GoodDay's argument that the mainstream mass media and DNC are opposed to Sanders winning. That right there is, perhaps, the strongest argument for why this article should exist, and it is disingenuous to suggest GoodDay's argument is "not valid" because GoodDay didn't cite a wiki shortcut. Notability of the topic is not in question, so it can exist. WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability, as I understand it, aren't, in themselves, reasons for deletion by dynamite. They are reasons for cleanup. Even some of those favouring deletion used bolded !votes in favour of merging, which is a variant on "keep." I'd argue it's, perhaps, closer to a "keep" or "merge" than "no consensus," but I'm not going to fault the closer for that. No consensus is an appropriate outcome in this case, given the strength of the arguments on, and the nosecount of, both sides. Doug Mehus T·C 19:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noted early on that one of the editors questioned GoodDay's argument that the mainstream mass media and DNC are opposed to Sanders winning. That right there is, perhaps, the strongest argument for why this article should exist... WP:USEFUL. A classic example of an argument that is not relevant to a deletion discussion.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC's Chris Matthews basically called Sanders a communist. Then there's James Carville. CNN over-covered Klobachar's third place finish in New Hampshire. CNN & other mainstream media continue to push the Buttigieg won Iowa narrative. Then we have the tone-deaft CNN debate question on 'sexism'. I don't have any control over whether this article is kept or not. But my goodness, do we need to have the heads of MSNBC, CNN & other mainstream news media, come out & announce that their news networks are against Sanders? GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of WP:SOAPBOXING that has tainted each of the deletion discussions. A strongly held POV is not a basis to do an end-run about Wikipedia's sourcing and notability policies. I'll also note that this statement includes an implicit acknowledgement that the subject of this article lacks notability measured according to reliable source coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No consensus was clearly the right way to close this AfD, as while a good portion of Keep votes were declaring that it should stay because it was true and not citing any relevant policy, a good proportion of Delete votes were stating that because it cannot be proven that the media contains a bias against Bernie Sanders, an article on the Media coverage of him does not deserve to exist, regardless of coverage of the topic. The discussion itself was clearly a No consensus result. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus. DR lister claims: "the arguments in favor of deletion were far stronger than the arguments for keeping it." That is patent POV in itself. Inclusion in the encyclopedia shouldn't be determined based on how loudly or persistently some group that is opposed to the content, but on both the policy of WP as well as the spirit of the encyclopedia. It simply doesn't make sense to use POV to argue POV. Incidentally, it's quite exhilarating the effort put in by a few people to WP:SNOWBALL the article by abusing the DR process. If that doesn't concern anyone, I don't know what would. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Most of the above !votes to overturn are just attempting to relitigate the AfD. That's not what DRV is for. It's clear there was no conesnsus, maybe even consensus to keep, but certainly not consensus to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Repeating a pattern from the last AFD nom, a number of endorsers of the closure are attacking me personally as the review nominator or (unironically) making accusations of POV or "abuse of process/re-litigation." Use of the AfD review process is not an abuse, and disagreement over the conclusion of an AfD is not POV. These attacks should be stricken, IMO. Votes against the closure in this discussion have identified two serious problems with the afd: 1) canvassing and 2) the apparent reliance on a vote count, rather than assessment of the arguments. Even the endorse votes have acknowledged these issues, particularly that the delete votes had the better of the arguments. As with AfD, an AfD review is not a vote count. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so determined to nuke that article? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting your arguments is not a personal attack. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a personal attack and is exactly what WP:NPA says to do when you disagree with another editor. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For what it's worth, any time someone challenges whether something is notable because it's titled media coverage of x, I know, immediately, it's almost certainly notable because there's almost certainly reliable, independent source coverage of the topic. The case could be made for an article on Media coverage of Pete Buttigieg, written neutrally and objectively and within the confines of WP:BLP, Media coverage of Joe Biden, Media coverage of Donald Trump, and you get the idea. What this article may need is cleanup; not deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 22:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD delete arguments noted that the problem was a lack of reliable sources independently addressing the subject. Sourcing is external to WP, so it is false to frame this as a just a cleanup issue. Further, most of the reliable sources in this article discuss the subject, Bernie Sanders, primarily in the context of his contemporaries, not on his own. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Doug Mehus.  As I mentioned in the talk page, this article could be cleaned up by replacing several of the sources with the Colombia Journalism Review piece, "Coverage of Bernie Sanders suffers from a lack of imagination".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is an extremely notable topic with no shortage of reliable sources (there are a bazillion of them like this coming out essentially daily now), which should raise a parade of red flags about why a handful of editors keep trying to get the article deleted. This is well past ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: You are free to raise any "red flag" you like at WP:ANI. I'd suggest you read WP:AGF on your way there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A notably aggressive response. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I concur with the above; this reminds me, a bit, of the Megxit AfD, with those arguing for deletion or redirection claiming it was "tabloid gossip" and unencyclopedic and, thus, not notable. It closed as "keep," but thankfully, none of the dissenters brought it to DRV. This DRV needs closure, and that's about it. There's not a snowball's chance in hell this topic ever gets deleted; cleaned up, most likely. Merged, maybe. Deleted, never. Doug Mehus T·C 23:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The argument in the past deletion nomination identifying this article as a WP:POVFORK is supported by discussions present at Bernie Sanders. Wherever editors are unable to obtain consensus for piling on more material on bias against Bernie Sanders the candidate, all of a sudden it magically is dumped into this page. That, along with the extremely limited "fourth wall" mentions of the Bernie Sanders campaign's complaints, and the fact that no other such page exists for another political candidate, all clearly weigh against keeping this page. The fact that these arguments were dismissed in favor of cursory votes and conclusory statements about notability (WP:ITSNOTABLE) or the "need" for such an article to serve the greater good (WP:USEFUL) is why the past discussion should be subjected to a more rigorous and objective review. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're beating a WP:DEADHORSE in your attempts to get the article-in-question deleted. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Personally, I think the article should be deleted. But, I can't argue with the closing. O3000 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the no consensus viewpoint - not sure any other close would have been anywhere near as appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]