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

2355:, a phenomenon often discussed amongst “Progressive” media for most of the last four years (including while it was happening). The discussions spend most of their time talking about the subtle techniques being employed to turn whatever coverage that does exist into dismissive instructions to ignore Bernie Sanders and consider who else should displace him. They discuss the ways thoughtful, credible journalists have been guided into perpetuating this poor coverage. You have a large segment of the American population that understand this concept clearly. Because conventional media is perpetrating this mis-reporting, it also backs up its reporting by self-generated, self regulation. We’re doing a good job. See, we just told you we are doing a good job, so now its a fact. Since that is happening in what are considered by wikipedia to be 660:

such as Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich all made similar claims and RS reported on those claims. it's neither feasible nor reasonable to create a separate Knowledge article for every major candidate who claims that the media are against them. Most of the article is a coatrack of accusations in low-quality RS or in op-ed pages. The academic analyses in the article are about media coverage in general during the 2016 election, and cover how the media covered all candidates (not just Sanders), so they do not indicate that this page is any more notable than a similar page for Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Trump, Kasich, Jeb Bush etc. Furthermore, what makes this POVFORK egregious is that academic analyses do not substantiate that the media was biased against Sanders:

2571:(where it can probably can be done in a few short sentences, as opposed to this fork article, which is an overwhelming wall of text). I don't see any significant, in-depth coverage of media coverage as a concept separate or apart from the Senator's presidential campaigns. I have to say that there is a very strong feeling of recentism about an article with a concept like this. Our encyclopedia should be timely and cover topics of current interest, but it should not be dominated by up-to-the-minute, blow-by-blow, back-and-forth, claims-and-counterclaims of the campaign horserace. 2359:, the reporting of the bias has had to happen outside that structure in what is referred to as “new media.” This blackout itself has caused millions of people to flock to getting their news and information from this new media because they cannot get it from conventional media. Ten thousand people do not show up at a Bernie rally because it was in the newspaper or on local TV, they get that news from new media sources. Knowledge must adapt its standards to account for “new media” or it will become a party to this mis-reporting. 2783:. Sorry there is no Knowledge namespace article talking about the fact that the article is almost like a news. If looked carefully, in many places the sentences start with a date, "On so and so month and year..." something like that. It seems that the user only looked up the subject of this media coverage of Bernie Sanders on google or Bing news search, and tried to implement each article or statement as short with stating the date as the month and year the article was posted on the internet. This is almost like 2787:, but not exactly, as the sources were inferenced and summarized. For the statements that have multiple sources from reliable sources, those statements could be broadened to make the article look less like a news article. However for sources that are unreliable and are overused, statements that rely just on those sources should be removed. I do agree with those that stated the sources like "NPR", "Daily Beast", are being over used or may be unreliable. However, there are other reliable sources like ABC, CNN,.... 3123:: We already went through this and the decision was to rename. This was a mistake because it fundamentally changed the nature of the article and set it up to be nominated for deletion. The article was originally about the Bernie blackout/bias and the media coverage concerning it. Simply making it about media coverage is far too general and it opens the door to having an article about media coverage for any person on TV. I propose the article be renamed back to 382: 1125:- The issue of how Sanders is covered in the media is pivotal, heavily covered and discussed, blatantly notable, and worthy of an article. This looks like another attempt to minimize the existence of something some editors seem to have an interest in minimizing. With the unquestionable notability of the subject combined with the fact that this is a repeated nomination after multiple failed ones, deletion seems incredibly petty. 2451:

of coverage. And people have been searching Bernie quite a bit, in the low 50-60 range, and they kind of plateaued into the following winter. So, maybe he's not getting super duper coverage, but he's not not there." I agree that the text as it was added on 31 December 2019 did not respect the spirit of what Claire Malone said in the interview. This is not unusual and fighting it often leads to conflict, cf.

3396:- To those that that make the final decision that results from this AfD discussion, I have faith in your decision and reasoning. However, I have noticed that while most people who support keeping claim that they want an article title that focuses on media coverage in general, they insist in their explanations that the media is heavily biased against Sanders, when only a few opinion pieces claim this. 2823:

news that won't give them much viewer rating points. For example, if Micheal Bloomburg fell asleep in a classic music concert and on the same day Joe Biden got the flu, news channels and sources would write about Joe Bidden. They would not write about Bloomburg falling asleep, that would just sound like dumb news. Also the statement that "Bernie is old news", is an opinionated statement.

31: 1775:

articles to the other candidates). You need a fair number of sources that cover the state of journalism to assert that there was a media bias against Sanders to support this to get past the OR issue. Some of the individual events do merit inclusion in the separate Sanders campaign articles or similar cases, but this as standalone is wholly improper for WP to be making the claim. --

807:) Read the 1st source in the entry and get back with me on the Shorenstein Center. I suppose a byproduct of deletion is that the talk page would be deleted. I get it. But that's not a reason to delete an encyclopedia entry. And quit comparing meaningless decontextualized percentages when you should be comparing numbers of stories for comparisons of superiority.-- 759:"Sanders’ coverage during the opening stage of the primaries was the most positive of any candidate... Sanders’ coverage during the Super Tuesday period, as was true of earlier stages, was the most favorable of any candidate... The middle stage of the primaries was the first time in the campaign where a candidate other than Sanders got the most favorable coverage." 765:"Sanders’s appeal... depended on extensive and often positive media coverage." + "In 2015, Sanders benefited from increas- ing news coverage that was more positive than Clinton received... This increasing and increasingly positive coverage helped give Sanders a national profile... The tone of news coverage continued to favor Sanders for the rest of the primary." 3418:, numerous sources have been sanitized and most of the content has been disappeared here. You may not see them presented in this article, but there are entire networks who regularly talk about the bias against Bernie Sanders in a variety of forms, then and now. You can't depend on the content of this article to get a full story, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM. 2065: 2365:

changed the title, then reversed the content of the article to promote the opposing message. In other words, they have gone beyond censoring the original content, the have reversed the spin and are presenting one sided information to guide the public perception away from learning about the phenomenon. Misinformation.

1550:

as a whole, have confirmed that there is no significant, special bias for or against Sanders. For instance, from the article referencing a study covering the entire 2016 election, "Patterson said that Sanders did better than most 'candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money,

1518:

In case anyone needs a reminder, let me point out that just since the last AfD, a CNN host has framed two debate questions from Warren's point of view and an MSNBC host has reached out to a pseudoscience purveyor who called Sanders a liar. Is anyone going to tell me that these things were not covered

881:

In February 2019, Shane Ryan (Paste Magazine) reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch, the Washington Post had published four opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan described the common themes in these columns as a "manufactured narrative" that

2995:

The criticism that you are referring to was not that much. On the other hand however, multiple people have actually told you multiple times on this AfD, that this is not a forum. This is an AfD, where we discuss the article and the subject of the article, not the users themselves. FYI, WMSR never

2822:

That is not totally true, he still is in the campaign. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the person who wants to get political news about candidates, to find that political news. If you remember when Bernie had a heart attack, he was all over the news. News channels don't want to show

2734:

For the same reasons others have described, namely that this is a well-sourced article on a notable topic. I would also like to specifically respond to some arguments made in favour of deleting. The article is not "POV pushing". "POV pushing" is when minor, fringe or disreputed views are given undue

2468:

and use some of the original material wrote. The current version of the article is ridiculous and has been captured by establishment hawks. Censorship is very real in this situation, and the only way to fight it is to write an article that actual covers the topic of the Bernie blackout. This article

988:

Not really. There's Brock. There's the WaPo. There's the DNC (the debates & media coverage are not well covered yet at all) There's the TV networks (AZ). There's the Shorenstein Study, which has been widely cited as confirming a huge statistical bias against issues (& a negative slant on

3046:

I assume you are talking about Donna Brazile. She did this as a part of her job at the DNC, not the media. She was also a guest contributor at CNN and they terminated her when they heard about it. She is now a Fox contributor. I think it would be a very difficult case to make that this has anything

3034:

1) you are correct about WMSR at AN/I; I misread Bbb23's comment. 2) I will not reply to what is wrong in your post, but will add that the story about the interim chair of the DNC leaking information about the questions that would be asked at CNN townhalls to the Clinton campaign during the primary

2807:

An old saying is "stats don't lie, statisticians do." In this case, it's the question of what do those stats actually mean? For 2016, Trump was a bumbling fool and Hillary was under federal investigation. Bad news is always covered more than feel good stories. For 2020, He is old news. His tale is

2450:

by Snooganssnoogans. In an effort to keep him from raising hell, but still with the idea of correcting the misrepresentation of Malone's views, I changed that to the current text on 3 January 2020, adding a direct citation to the quote tag from Claire Malone: "And now he's sort of edged up into 30%

2387:

And I noted that Shultz was terminated by MSNBC 45 days later, which additional sources also report Shultz attributed directly to that disagreement. That content was removed. The wikilawyering has made its source, a direct quote from the now deceased Shultz himself, to be considered non-reliable

1774:

To group all the singular events as to give the appearance of a singular bias against Sanders is flat out synthesis and original research, considering that (as Snooganssnoogans is pointing out, there is similar bias for all candidates in these last two elections but we aren't giving wholly separate

1716:

Interesting point, but all those sources use the term "Bernie Blackout", which doesn't focus on media coverage as a whole. Maybe an article about the "Bernie Blackout" could be created, describing the phenomenon as a term coined by Sanders supporters describing their view on Sanders and the media,

1468:

Can I cast a vote for cutting this down by 2/3s? The subject is worthwhile but the article length is excessive and it's only going to get longer and longer as we move into 2020 as more and more coverage gets added. I know that AfD options are Keep, Delete, Merge or Redirect but jeez, this is just a

1379:

We're observing a philosophical clash between two divergent journalistic philosophies. One side wants to uphold an ideal of journalists as scrupulously impartial judges of political ideas, as a fourth branch of government. The other side often observes many or most media outlets as rags, as dirty

927:

It's true I haven't worked as much on the stuff from 2020, you can see the difference in the prose between the two sections, as I tend to be less prolix, in general. I responded to your comments when you wrote them and now that I've had a moment I've made two or three changes because of them. Let

2942:

During my time editing this page, I have tried to clean up the article and I have also placed issue banners. The banners have since been removed, and my attempts to remove content that does not belong have all faced serious resistance; most were reverted and several personal attacks were lobbed at

2739:

article. That has been called "POV pushing", but ultimately, despite numerous attempts to delete, it has been kept, simply because the analogy is so powerful, and has been such a significant point in the debate. The most important reason the article should be kept is, of course, because the Bernie

659:

The article was created as POVFORK to promote the Sanders supporter POV that the media is biased against Sanders. During every presidential campaign, there are accusations (which are widely reported in RS that this-or-that candidate was unfairly treated by the media). During 2016 alone, candidates

2028:

Elsewhere, you argue that Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuits against google and against Clinton should be seen as media coverage tactics (which, of course, I agree with), but here you don't see it the same way. And then you complain there aren't enough facts. I will dig up the CTR's deleted links to their

302:

arguing that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is basically a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable

2408:

This is a terrible trend for our worldwide information source. These same operatives are descending on every article related to “progressive” media and particularly progressive political candidates. They are removing sourced content to hide information and taking aggressive measures to keep it

1176:

entry as is with no deletion of content not agreed upon between the editors in its Talk Page. How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner with Biden. In addition, many RS's have covered the subject; why should

2414:

If these articles can get hacked, if we as the wikipedia community let them, the entire credibility of wikipedia will come into question. This is a much bigger problem than just this article that wikipedia will have to deal with, or suffer the consequences of losing its position as the world’s

2364:

Since its creation, this article has been descended upon by what I firmly believe to be political operatives, probably paid operatives and certainly sent by the same forces that caused the Bernie blackout across major media in the first place. Since they have taken over the article, they have

2602:

on November 30, 2019 after he had been working on it in his sandbox. When he inserted links to the new article that day, it started showing up in my watchlist and I first contributed about an hour later. It describes events that have a timeline starting in 2015, though there is a historical

2486:

I get what you're saying, but IMO those are not reasons to delete. To rename, sure. To protect or semi-protect, sure. To delete, no way. If the topic is article worthy as you suggest it is, then delete is simply the wrong result. WP shouldn't negotiate with (for lack of a better word) media

1820:

of Bernie Sanders" were not onto something more fundamental. My personal choice at that time was "Media coverage of Democratic primaries 2000-2020". I went with the flow though, and this is the repayment I get for the hard work. Also it is worth noting that Snoogans recent pov creation

2735:

weight (say, Vitamin C megadoses on an article about cancer treatments). However, that media bias against Sanders exists has been a significant point of mainstream discussion in both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, more so than any other candidate. A comparison I like to make is with the

1894:

Not an AFD argument. WP:N (85 references), WP:V (all references are verifiable for their claims), are both unquestionably met. WP:NPOV is met because multiple points of view are represented and nothing prevents further POV being added. WP:OSE is not a valid argument in an AFD.--

2603:

phenomenon existing as long as history itself. Anyone with views that do not match the establishment will come under some form of attack from the establishment. America's pioneers, my relatives and maybe yours, are among those victims of persecution. Refer back to the quote.

1904:

Most of those refs are either self-identified "progressive" outlets or editorials. For that reason, they mostly fail verifiability. Sure, we can verify that x pundit said y, but at the end of the day, if we remove editorials, there is barely an article left. And saying that

1569:

That quotation almost sounds like it's making Bernie's point for him. If the media were consistent, a candidate with lots of money, lots of organization and a huge following should do better than all of the candidates who lack those three qualities, not just most of them.

2792:

In regards to editors saying the articles are sounding too opinionated confuses me, since some of the reliable sources are were some of the statistics are coming from. I do not think a statistic from a reliable source can be considered opinionated, but i can be wrong.

2402:

They are using wikipedia’s voice to tell us not to believe our lying eyes. Whenever any editor tries to insert any content that goes opposite to their counter-narrative, one of them swoops in and removes that content. They are actively protecting this presentation of

3176:

if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine

2091:

campaigns say negative things about other candidates. That isn't surprising or notable, and it has little to do with media coverage of Sanders and more to do with coverage of Brock. Pushing a conspiracy theory about David Brock is not going to improve this article.

729:. Also Media Tense's data as studied at Harvard by Mr. Patterson directly and resoundingly contradict both quantitatively and qualitatively the idea that the press outlets studied were primarily interested in pushing Sanders in the Democratic race from March 2016. 303:

fact. Some of this content may be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed (see the talk page for more on that).

2205:🐟 Saying someone is "pushing a conspiracy theory" -- as you did -- by providing sources that say exactly what they are described as saying is either a BLP violation or a personal attack (or, more likely, both). You do what you want with your credibility. -- 2947:

this article or continue to face abuse, and I doubt any other editor wants to either, nor should they. Basically, to say "this article just needs to be cleaned up" on the RfD and calling it a day ignores the true difficulty of actually completing that work.

802:

Oh for the love of marshmallows would you knock it off. The point is part II. Everyone who works on this page knows that. "Sanders’ coverage was particularly sparse. In terms of the volume of media coverage, the Democratic race was one sided"

111: 1237:

I am not sure what CRYSTALBALL are you talking about. The content is discussed in the media extensively. The media coverage of Bernie has been widely called "Bernie Blackout" and sources are discussing this. Content disputes are not reasons for

1154:

Agree with the above comment. To illustrate how notable this controversy of media coverage of Bernie Sanders search "Bernie blackout". I have been in deletion discussions many times, never that I saw content disputes being a valid reason for

2341:

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

2740:

Blackout is....real. You saw it with your own eyes in the last Democratic debate hosted by CNN. Is it not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to be writing about the truth, rather than trying to come up with reasons to suppress it?

255: 3274:

3 nominations in 60 days is essentially trolling. The topic verifiably exists, citations are bountiful and on-point. Third Way Dems are upset over Sanders' populist message, but this isn't the way to go about disagreeing with it.

2863:, disregarding that the article should not have been nominated for deletion so soon after the last discussion was closed, the topic of the Media's coverage of Bernie Sanders has clearly been the subject of enough coverage to pass 1807:

had massive social media retweeting from the Clinton camp, whereas different media outlets were more amply echoed in Sanders' circles. Everyone should take a step back and realize that the debate is not about whether there was

715:(2) is meaningless. Correlated how? Is this correlation relevant in the Democratic race? If so, how? Was Clinton's coverage strongly correlated with her standing in the polls, or did it fluctuate with the various media moments? 1795:. Sanders got 78% of the popular votes that Clinton got, but only 2/3 of the media coverage in the drastically undercovered Democratic primary. This has been widely covered by both major mainstream press actors (editor of the 1309:

Starting another AFD for an article that just had one ending the month before is a waste of time. There are ample references in the article about this. Reliable sources give significant coverage to the media coverage of him.

2415:

leading information source. When people find wikipedia reporting information diametrically opposed to what they know and experience, they will leave. Unfortunately for now, this article is a lost cause and should be deleted.

2392:

so presumably after 30 plus years of credible American broadcasting from both sides of the aisle, now he was a foreign agent and his own words cannot be trusted. This is the addled logic that now has subjugated this entire

2587:. Let's see... first ref = 2005, more than half of the text is about 2016. Fascinating to see everyone coming to play! Hi, "neutrality". 77/83 references are over a month old. A clear majority are over a year old.-- 684:

A) John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107. B) Bitecofer, Rachel (2018). "The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election". Palgrave: 36–38,

1211:

to media coverage of Sanders, yet that's all that seems to be present. There is very little verifiable factual information about the subject. Furthermore, saying that Sanders is becoming a frontrunner is not only

2380:

stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was angrily told by then-president of MSNBC

106: 360: 3208:

content or sourcing, never mind a predominance of it that would justify a deletion. Besides that, this exact argument has already been presented in the previous discussion, which was already resolved.

2758:

There are some articles and opinion pieces referring to an alleged "Bernie Blackout", but there are no major studies that present evidence that there is significant media bias against Bernie Sanders.

1638: 1547: 854:

Article is a vehicle for inclusion of speculative information, rather than a record of a notable event. It's active edit history is indicative of the controversy of the topic, not actual notability.

642: 1825:) cites Hillary Clinton's memoir, whereas he deleted Jeff Weaver's book-length study of media coverage and the election, because he did not like the part about David Brock's media manipulation. ( 1399:

The other side often observes many or most media outlets as rags, as dirty bird sheets in serious thrall to some wealthy owner's perverse political axe to grind or to their big advertisers' money

679:(3) Per peer-reviewed research, Sanders' media coverage exceeded his standing in the polls during 2015, and the media exaggerated how close the Democratic race was from March 2016 onwards. 2846:

per CompactSpacez, Rusf10, Bloodofox, Ylevental and Master of Time. Coming back here only a month after the last attempt to delete this article is something I regard as ludicrous at best.

1506:

You can find academic sources arguing that Sanders was covered fairly? Good. They should be added to the article to show that people on both sides of the debate consider the topic notable.

673:(2) While Sanders received less media coverage than Clinton, his coverage was "strongly correlated" with his standing in the polls, and candidates who poll lower get less media coverage. 249: 3370:

It doesn't. It relates to the bias against Sanders that has been present since 2015. Which is a good reason this article (or a new one) should be about the bias, not the media coverage.

2285:. Not a POV fork; for whatever reason (perhaps because Sanders identifies as a socialist), the nature of his coverage in US media differs from that of the other Democratic candidates. 1717:

along with others' responses to that phenomenon. It would be very different from this article however, as the "blackout" is far more narrow in scope, so I'm sticking with deletion.

961:

he could be telling the truth... will fix up the ref, I hadn't read that article yet. I think I've read the RS one, but again, I've worked mostly on 2016. Your summary is reductive.

947:

Shakir is being cited as to what he would like to discuss other than Trump's tweets: he answers "regulatory capture". Your description of that section is just a tiny bit parodic.

1863:. This does not count the landslide victories in Washington, North Dakota & Maine (or Clinton's razor thin win in Iowa or her 5% spread in NV). 21:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1509:

You think negative media mentions of other candidates are just as systemic (which I doubt) as they are with Sanders? Good. Keep this article to serve as a guide for writing your

1968:. Seitz-Wald said it marked the first time this group had initiated action against a Democrat and that it was unlikely to lead to any result given the FEC's structural deadlock. 181: 176: 208: 185: 2237:

every candidate receives negative press and usually has valid complaints about the media. Some of the complaints also seem to be rife with cherrypicking to fit a narrative.

320: 667:(1) Sanders received the most positive coverage of any candidate in the 2016 election whereas his main Democratic opponent (Clinton) received the most negative coverage. 1044: 1024: 168: 3093:

I assume it should be added in a section about DNC control over debates & townhalls. I've added a section to the talk page where you can add to the discussion. --

957:

I've read the WaPo article which published the APJH's response, which was not flattering. When two medical doctors at Harvard accuse the WaPo fact-checker of lying I

2867:. Whether the supposed bias in coverage is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion. And yes, the article is a mess in its current state, but AFD is not cleanup. 1499:

Media bias can never be proven because it requires mind reading? Good. The article should continue to describe media coverage and meta-analyses of this coverage and

1280:

of pundits. There are not enough reliable sources with verifiable facts pertaining to the subject to prove notability. I understand that it's tempting to give in to

518:

WMSR shouldn't vote when he/she is the nominator. I agree, the media bias against Sanders controversy is notable itself. It has even got its own "Bernie blackout".-

340: 493:

What's all the commotion? I watch independent news everyday & the MSM bias against Sanders, is spotted & pointed out. My reason for 'keeping' this article

392:

to debate the subject of the article. Be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. -

294:. Bernie Sanders is the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is 712:

written about him than Clinton or Trump at all times during the campaign, according to both Brandwatch & Media Tense (the sources for Sides & Shorenstein)

40: 940:(I've removed the quote from AOC, which I did not add, though I left it as the title of the tweet-ref) The guy from JTA mentions the tweet, unless I'm mistaken. 1948: 1427: 968:

is the title of the page. Quantity of coverage as you know was converted into as mega-Trump-bucks worth of free advertising equivalents in the secondary lit.

215: 3253:

When this discussion ends with a non-delete outcome, the article will no doubt be nominated again. And again. And again. That has to be nipped in the bud. -

1688: 1947:

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

900:

The use of In These Times to use quantity of coverage as a metric to prove media doesn't cover Sanders. Perhaps he just didn't say anything new or notable

155: 81:. There are obviously a lot of editorial issues to discuss on the talk page of the article going forward, but there is no consensus to delete the article. 3427: 3405: 3382: 3365: 3347: 3318: 3300: 3284: 3260: 3248: 3236: 3215: 3143: 3097: 3056: 3041: 3005: 2990: 2957: 2930: 2894: 2876: 2855: 2832: 2817: 2802: 2767: 2749: 2726: 2705: 2687: 2664: 2641: 2628: 2612: 2591: 2575: 2555: 2534: 2518:. I tried to help fix it several weeks ago, but there are too many zealous editors willing to ignore our content policies for the article not to remain a 2498: 2481: 2459: 2444:

Claire Malone of FiveThirtyEight rejected that Sanders was the subject of a "media blackout," saying that he received sizable and rising article coverage.

2433: 2329: 2304: 2273: 2246: 2209: 2164: 2146: 2101: 2078: 2033: 1922: 1899: 1877: 1854: 1840: 1787: 1758: 1744: 1726: 1711: 1672: 1654: 1628: 1610: 1596: 1579: 1560: 1528: 1484: 1463: 1438: 1417: 1389: 1365: 1351: 1333: 1293: 1247: 1232: 1190: 1164: 1144: 1117: 1080: 1056: 1036: 1008: 922: 876: 863: 846: 811: 775: 736: 695: 631: 614: 592: 574: 541: 527: 506: 488: 474: 443: 418: 401: 372: 352: 332: 312: 90: 140: 935:. A median solution between the two proposals was found after someone (will check who) deleted it during the RfC (which is usually considered a no-no). 2568: 2564: 2370:

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

1735:

The RSs are discussing the media coverage of Bernie Sanders. The subject of media coverage of Bernie Sanders is obviously notable and controversial.--

1105: 1101: 654: 650: 1426:

I just want to link this story from the WaPo that says how the DNC leaks exposed the anti-Sanders democrats who worked to smear him and his campaign

3001: 2986:

reliable sources to the article, has been criticized for edit warring on 13-14 January at AN/I (1RR page) and has removed about a dozen sources. --

2926: 2914: 2828: 2798: 2717:- A notable topic with plenty of sources. It has been well documented that the media treats Sanders differently than any other Democrat candidate.-- 1696: 1429:. I believe this is relevant especially for those who deny that there is a conspiracy. Open in chrome incognito if you want to pass the paywall.- 3131:. This second deletion nom is absurd and uses the exact same arguments as before. It should’ve been closed by admin the moment it was nominated. 1177:

Knowledge abstain from it when this website should be but a mirror of how reliable sources approach a given subject? Deleting this entry is true

2979: 1140: 270: 1276:

on it. There are very few, if any, sources in this article with concrete facts; as it stands now, most of the article is quoted or summarized

833:

it is a notable, controversial issue that is widely covered in reliable sources. Definitely should have its own article. Content disputes and

237: 172: 3294:

The article has become a coatrack for pro-sanders/anti-media talking points and any attempt to restore neutrality is eventually reverted. –

2542:– Gathering information about independent events and tying them together in an article to present a conclusion in the mind of the reader is 909:

All references above are the 2020 section of the article. 2016 can be summed up as "Nobody likes that Trump sucked the air out of the room"

2637:

Yes, the vast majority of sources are news and commentary pieces relating to either the 2016 or 2020 election campaign: i.e., horse race.

1584:

As the peer-reviewed research shows, the coverage that Sanders received during his early candidacy far exceeded his support in the polls.

2909:

WMSR, can you explain rebuffed? I have a feeling that when you are saying rebuffed, that you are referring to more stuff of things like

1868:

78% vote and 66% coverage are not that far apart. Many people knew about Bernie Sanders, but still willingly chose to vote for Clinton.

1702:

And lots and lots of other sources discussing this highly controversial subject. Content disputes are not valid arguments for deletion.--

1260:(emphasis mine). Nowhere did I say that content disputes were reasons for deletion, but the actual reasons that I gave in the nomination 606:-- as the principal author (now), I should probably avoid voting "snow keep" :) Many people have worked on it. Here is Naked Knowledge's 3335: 3295: 2997: 2937: 2922: 2824: 2794: 1836:

Further directions for the page include, Sanders use of local access media in Vermont, his radio show, his social media machinery... --

1690: 1551:

no organization, and no national following.'" It's better, but not significantly better to the point where it's an extreme outlier.

3464: 3124: 2885:

I understand that AfD is not a proposal to cleanup, but editors who are making earnest attempts to do so are constantly rebuffed. --

1448:– What is the point of going through a giant AfD if you're just gonna ignore it and try to blow up the article again a month later? 231: 2736: 164: 96: 2314: 1822: 2514:

material about media bias for and against Sanders is warranted in the campaign articles, but this one has been seized upon for

1601:

It's true that media coverage was greater, but it was not significantly greater compared to other candidates in his situation.

135: 128: 17: 2424:, but I do not know how we can protect it from immediately being seized by these same forces and also turned into propaganda. 1586:

Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.

1546:" (which was based on performance from a single debate). The vast majority of large studies on the matter, which focused on 675:

Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.

669:

Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.

227: 1380:

bird sheets in serious thrall to some wealthy owner's perverse political axe to grind or to their big advertisers' money.

718:(3) Bitecofer is not a good reference for this claim, which again does not tell the whole media/DNC/super-delegate story. 1284:, but at the end of the day, a thousand op-eds alleging mistreatment of Sanders by the media does not an article make. -- 2318: 277: 1961: 746: 458: 149: 145: 2313:

Some say that Bernie Sanders is still a definitive capitalist, that's why I think this controversy is very unlikely.

1998: 2409:

hidden. These are evolutions of "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

1965: 1754: 1692: 1650: 1592: 1136: 771: 691: 1216:, but largely irrelevant. Biden does not have a comparable page. I also don't understand how deleting the article 3446: 2913:

are being added, that still is not a reason for AfD. Although, that is reason for an article to be discussed at

2872: 2142:, who tells the same story) of "pushing a conspiracy theory" go wmsr, go. wait, isn't that a BLP violation? -- 1510: 69: 46: 1686: 1456: 872:

Please give a textual example of this speculative information. That's easy to say... let's see some text...--

834: 2455:. Since 3 January you've had a lot of time to fix that... (incidentally: I'm not a political operative) -- 1542:

events, such as polls, policy opinions, and the "16 stories about Bernie Sanders over a 16-hour period by the

243: 1694: 882:

Sanders' time had—as one of the columnists put it—"come and gone". - speculation into why WaPo wrote articles

3361: 3052: 2745: 2701: 2624: 2551: 1385: 932: 291: 804: 755: 1910: 1624: 1575: 1524: 928:

me know if you consider these improvements (see the grayed items and my most recent edit to the article).

750:"Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic." 515: 465:) that prohibits striking another's comment (except as provided) also prohibits removing others' comments. 86: 2400:

Sanders was not the subject of a "media blackout," as he had just reached a 30 percent share of coverage.

3442: 3377: 3138: 2476: 1750: 1740: 1707: 1646: 1588: 1434: 1381: 1347: 1243: 1213: 1160: 1132: 1068: 1052: 1032: 842: 767: 687: 627: 523: 397: 65: 1492:. Most of the arguments presented as reasons for deleting this article are in fact reasons to keep it. 1469:

completely unwieldy article but redeemable if it was just massively cut down in size. Count this as a

3257: 3245: 3212: 2905: 2868: 2523: 2495: 2465: 2295: 1356:

The second nomination was closed for procedural reasons by the proposer with no comments or votes. --

1128: 607: 3423: 3401: 3314: 2996:

stated in his reply to me that he had added references. Cleanup does not always mean references.

2910: 2813: 2780: 2763: 2660: 2608: 2429: 2325: 1873: 1850: 1722: 1668: 1606: 1556: 1449: 1076: 918: 859: 263: 3357: 3280: 3224: 3186: 3048: 2851: 2784: 2741: 2697: 2620: 2617: 2547: 2519: 2515: 1500: 1219: 1182: 1178: 1089: 885:

Entire politico section relies on Pro-Sanders quotes to support a speculative anti-Semitism claim

409:- MSM & the DNC are opposed to Sanders' winning the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. 1409: 1109: 622:

this is third nomination (but it was a different title), the nomination title must be changed.--

3223:

does not apply to this situation. Relisting and renominating are entirely different processes.

3035:

is missing from the entry. (Her contract with CNN was terminated 7 months later as a result.)

3343: 2683: 2269: 1621: 1571: 1520: 1281: 588: 537: 502: 414: 299: 124: 82: 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3441:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2315:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/upshot/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-capitalist.html

897:

WaPo vs Rolling Stone to create perception that WaPo maliciously declares his statement false

762:

John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press:

64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

3371: 3220: 3158: 3132: 3037:]. Feel free to participate on the page if you think you can help make the entry better.-- 2722: 2599: 2470: 2282: 2242: 1736: 1703: 1619:"The vast majority of large studies on the matter..." -- sounds like the topic is notable! 1430: 1406: 1343: 1311: 1239: 1186: 1156: 1048: 1028: 906:

The entire CNN debate section which ends with an Anti Semitism claim to bolster it's impact.

838: 623: 519: 470: 439: 393: 2087:

The two situations are not analogous, and the source you mention is unfit for the article.

3254: 3242: 3209: 3128: 3094: 3038: 2987: 2675: 2638: 2588: 2572: 2543: 2492: 2456: 2389: 2286: 2261: 2206: 2151:

I made no such accusation. Stop casting aspersions. This discussion is about the article,

2143: 2075: 2030: 1913:. We are here to present facts, and facts are not sufficiently present in this article. -- 1896: 1837: 1783: 1413: 1113: 1005: 985:

though I'm not 100% convinced this MSNBC story should stay out or that Greenwald is wrong.

873: 808: 733: 611: 570: 452: 389: 1342:

This is the third nomination. After this get closed there will be no more nominations.--

610:

of the page's sourcing & concepts. (The page appears to have broken the css!) ^^ --

381: 3419: 3397: 3310: 3232: 2953: 2890: 2809: 2759: 2656: 2604: 2425: 2321: 2160: 2097: 1918: 1869: 1846: 1718: 1664: 1602: 1552: 1402: 1361: 1289: 1228: 1097: 1072: 914: 855: 646: 484: 462: 368: 348: 328: 308: 287: 2678:: The article. The sourcing is weak at best and POV pushing is all over this article. 1845:

78% of popular vote? Think we need to be writing a different article if that was true.

3458: 3415: 3276: 3185:

Furthermore, given that this article has already recently been through this process,

2918: 2864: 2847: 2655:. This is a highly notable, well-covered topic, backed by numerous reliable sources. 2530: 2319:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/real-socialists-left-bernie/596890/

1093: 638: 2388:

source because Shultz found his next employment working for the American version of

2003:

These kinds of complaints often go nowhere, and sometimes are used more to generate

3339: 3205: 2679: 2488: 2382: 2356: 2265: 2257: 584: 560: 533: 511: 498: 410: 3309:

This is true. Most of the studies in this article focus on elections as a whole.

202: 2779:

I am not able to decide, but the article it self seems to be more in a format of

3201: 3197: 2718: 2238: 2139: 466: 435: 2377: 1776: 989:

Sanders from March 15th for the little press Media Tenor found that he got...)

970:

That said I've shortened the section on Grim covering that the following month

566: 448: 2491:

to deal with those issues. To capitulate to vandalism is not encyclopedic. -

3331: 3228: 2949: 2901: 2886: 2156: 2093: 1914: 1357: 1285: 1224: 480: 364: 344: 324: 304: 1749:

All major 2016 candidates have RS coverage of claims regarding media bias.

2527: 2385:

that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders”.

1538:– Most discussion of media coverage of Bernie Sanders are opinions about 1475: 298:

for whom this is the case. This article seems to have been started as a

112:

Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders (2nd nomination)

3227:

does not apply either, as the last AfD was closed with no consensus. --

1860: 938:

The guy from JTA is pro-Sanders? I think you should read that again.

2420:

I will firmly argue we should create a proper article describing the

3241:

It's worse. It's an abuse of process. Death by a thousand cuts. -

2546:(at best). Some of the text can be merged into relevant articles. 2135: 1957: 1256:

will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner

3168:

relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure

1645:

of the studies are specifically about media coverage of Sanders.

434:

was neither a correctly classified !vote nor a relevant argument.

3414:

Please recall that this article has already been taken over and

3196:

argument would include that the lister claims the page violates

1254:

How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and

3437:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2464:

I fully agree. I say we simply just write a new article titled

1519:

in RS sources or that they represent acceptable media conduct?

1223:, since an article can't be a coat rack if it doesn't exist. -- 2585:

I have to say that there is a very strong feeling of recentism

1999:"David Brock group hits Bernie Sanders with ethics complaints" 1685:

Some reliable sources that support notability of the subject:

1639:

Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election

1548:

Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election

983:

yeah, I'm not a big fan of that either boldly removed for you,

931:

This is quoted material from the WaPo about which there was a

891:

Shakir, Sanders' Campaign Manager used as a source against CNN

643:

Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election

25: 1067:

some of the content following the excellent argument made by

361:

list of United States of America-related deletion discussions

2264:

when an editor chooses which coverage fits the hypotheses.

2029:

suits and add them to the bibliography on the talk page.--

3334:

has nominated a slate of candidates for committees at the

2510:

per WMSR, Snooganssnoogans, KidAd, Trackinfo, and others.

3356:

How is this related to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders?

1859:

I have added "that Clinton got". The data is very clear

903:

2 Journalist quotes to validate media has a centrist bias

894:

Sanders own musings about WaPo used to indicate WaPo bias

1799:

for example), the Berkman Klein Center, which notes the

2808:

the same, so journalists write about other candidates.

2452: 2447: 2072: 1826: 888:

Katie Halper used to speculate on motives of NYT writer

198: 194: 190: 107:

Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders

262: 2442:

For info the sentence about the Bernie Blackout said

2083:

This discussion is about the content of the article.

1960:

that David Brock had filed three complaints with the

1956:

At the end of the month, Alex Seitz-Wald reported in

3157:

This relisting breaks the guidelines for relisting (

2598:Point of information: The article was created by 1199:The issue is that reliable sources haven't really 975:Two journalists (including the founding editor of 2134:🐟 Now, I see you are accusing Alex Seitz-Wald, 532:Glad to see that my 21:31 post was unstuck, btw. 72:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3449:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2943:me. I don't have the desire to edit-war content 1043:Note: This discussion has been included in the 1023:Note: This discussion has been included in the 359:Note: This discussion has been included in the 339:Note: This discussion has been included in the 321:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions 319:Note: This discussion has been included in the 1045:list of News media-related deletion discussions 1025:list of Journalism-related deletion discussions 944:Katie Halper provides rather a lot of evidence. 1909:is problematic; we are not here to present an 1641:, of which Sanders is one of many candidates. 637:Delete most of the content, merge some of the 3330:- FWIW, over the last few days, DNC Chairman 1954: 341:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 276: 8: 156:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 2351:. It was a well sourced discussion of the 1772:Merge relevant content but otherwise delete 724:in her research (and not to make fun of it) 479:Nah, Bbb23 was right. I deleted my vote. -- 1964:against the Sanders' campaign through his 1126: 1042: 1022: 565:This is an AfD. What does "oppose" mean?-- 358: 338: 318: 3192:Aside from the speedy reasons, the plain 2569:Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign 2565:Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign 1106:Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign 1102:Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign 655:Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign 651:Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign 3189:also applies. This aFd should be closed. 2915:Knowledge:Dispute resolution noticeboard 1907:nothing prevents further POV being added 3338:. All the candidates are anti-Sanders. 2563:. This can be covered in the articles 1989: 954:of newspaper ink was spilled over this. 104: 45:For an explanation of the process, see 2584: 2443: 2399: 2375: 1906: 1253: 1217: 1096:. Move usable/relevant information to 2398:Now, instead, we have phrases like: 7: 933:discussion that took place on the TP 3336:2020 Democratic National Convention 1503:if those alleging bias are correct. 1207:about it. The article is not about 103: 41:deletion review on 2020 February 16 1997:Alex Seitz-Wald (March 30, 2016). 1814:overwhelming majority of 17 people 964:They said Sanders wasn't covered. 753:Shorenstein Center report for 2016 744:Shorenstein Center report for 2015 24: 3125:Media bias against Bernie Sanders 2349:Media bias against Bernie Sanders 1203:the subject. They have published 3200:but provides no examples of non- 2737:Israel and the apartheid analogy 2063: 979:) wrote that they thought it did 966:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders 837:are not reasons for deletions.-- 380: 165:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders 141:Introduction to deletion process 97:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders 29: 2007:than actual enforcement action. 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 2998:Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold 2938:Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold 2923:Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold 2825:Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold 2795:Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold 1816:who voted to rename the page " 514:, they are talking about this 1: 1966:American Democracy Legal Fund 388:Stay on topic. This is not a 3428:04:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3406:02:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3383:17:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 3366:17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3348:17:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3319:02:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 3301:17:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3285:02:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3261:00:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3249:00:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3237:23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 3216:23:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 3144:21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 3098:22:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 3057:22:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 3042:21:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 3006:19:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2991:18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2958:17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2931:16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2895:15:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2877:09:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2856:03:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2833:04:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2818:03:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2803:02:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2768:19:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2750:00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2727:23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2706:00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2696:Why is the sourcing "weak"? 2688:21:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2665:21:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2642:21:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2629:21:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2613:21:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2592:21:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2576:20:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2556:18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2535:18:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2499:00:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 2487:terrorists. We already have 2482:21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 2460:11:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2434:06:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2330:00:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2305:23:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 2274:22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 2247:22:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 2210:03:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2165:03:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2147:03:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2102:03:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2079:03:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2034:01:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 1923:23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1900:22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1878:22:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1855:21:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1841:21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1788:20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1759:20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1745:20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1727:20:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1712:19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1673:18:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1655:17:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1637:Those studies are all about 1629:17:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1611:16:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1597:16:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1580:16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1561:15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1529:15:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1485:05:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1464:04:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1439:03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1418:03:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1390:03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1366:03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1352:03:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1334:02:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1294:03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1248:03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1233:00:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 1191:22:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1165:23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1145:22:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1118:22:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1081:22:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1057:22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1037:22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1009:00:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 923:22:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 877:22:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 864:21:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 847:21:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 812:23:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 776:23:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 737:23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 696:21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 632:21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 615:21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 593:21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 575:21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 542:23:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 528:23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 507:22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 489:22:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 475:21:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 444:21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 419:21:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 402:04:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 373:21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 353:21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 333:21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 313:21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 296:the only person in the world 91:15:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 2347:This originally was titled 1511:Media coverage of Joe Biden 708:(1) is false. Sanders had 131:(AfD)? Read these primers! 3481: 2982:shows that WMSR has added 2469:does not do that anymore. 3182:That criteria is not met. 3047:to do with this article. 47:Knowledge:Deletion review 3465:Pages at deletion review 3439:Please do not modify it. 1812:or not, but whether the 61:Please do not modify it. 1272:different than sources 727:that's your Kelley ref) 286:Proposing deletion per 1970: 1911:argument to moderation 710:fewer positive stories 516:Special:Diff/937894263 102:AfDs for this article: 2446:when it was added on 1501:let the reader decide 1069:User:Snooganssnoogans 129:Articles for deletion 461:), the same source ( 2911:Template:Cleanup-PR 2781:Template:Cleanup-PR 2085:It is not about me. 1377:Keep and generalize 1252:I am talking about 835:I just dont like it 722:Blue Nation Review 720:She cites Brock's 608:automatic analysis 433: 429: 386:Administrator note 1663:Fixed to clarify 1282:confirmation bias 1147: 1131:comment added by 1059: 1039: 641:content with (i) 431: 427: 375: 355: 335: 146:Guide to deletion 136:How to contribute 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 3472: 3373:Andrew Z. Colvin 3298: 3161:), specifically: 3134:Andrew Z. Colvin 2980:quick fact-check 2941: 2600:User:Azcolvin429 2472:Andrew Z. Colvin 2448:31 December 2019 2357:reliable sources 2300: 2291: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2010: 2009: 1994: 1780: 1751:Snooganssnoogans 1647:Snooganssnoogans 1589:Snooganssnoogans 1483: 1460: 1454: 1400: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1264:. Media sources 1133:PlanespotterA320 984: 971: 941: 768:Snooganssnoogans 688:Snooganssnoogans 564: 384: 281: 280: 266: 218: 206: 188: 126: 63: 33: 32: 26: 3480: 3479: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3447:deletion review 3296: 3129:Bernie Blackout 2935: 2906:Devonian Wombat 2869:Devonian Wombat 2466:Bernie blackout 2422:Bernie Blackout 2403:misinformation. 2390:RT (TV network) 2353:Bernie Blackout 2298: 2289: 2064: 2062: 2015: 2014: 2013: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1778: 1544:Washington Post 1474: 1458: 1450: 1398: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1313: 982: 969: 939: 649:article, (iii) 558: 223: 214: 179: 163: 160: 123: 117: 100: 77:The result was 70:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3478: 3476: 3468: 3467: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3451: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3409: 3408: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3351: 3350: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3304: 3303: 3288: 3287: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3255:Keith D. Tyler 3251: 3243:Keith D. Tyler 3210:Keith D. Tyler 3190: 3183: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3163: 3162: 3147: 3146: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2880: 2879: 2858: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2789: 2788: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2753: 2752: 2729: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2691: 2690: 2668: 2667: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2579: 2578: 2558: 2537: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2493:Keith D. Tyler 2484: 2462: 2437: 2436: 2417: 2416: 2411: 2410: 2405: 2404: 2395: 2394: 2372: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2361: 2360: 2344: 2343: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2308: 2307: 2276: 2250: 2249: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2081: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2012: 2011: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1952: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1861:as you can see 1831: 1830: 1818:Media coverage 1790: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1730: 1729: 1699: 1698: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1658: 1657: 1632: 1631: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1599: 1564: 1563: 1532: 1531: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1507: 1504: 1494: 1493: 1487: 1466: 1452:Master of Time 1442: 1441: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1393: 1392: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1337: 1336: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1214:WP:CRYSTALBALL 1194: 1193: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1149: 1148: 1120: 1098:Bernie Sanders 1083: 1061: 1060: 1040: 1018: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 986: 980: 973: 962: 955: 948: 945: 942: 936: 912: 911: 910: 907: 904: 901: 898: 895: 892: 889: 886: 883: 867: 866: 849: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 730: 716: 713: 701: 700: 699: 698: 677: 671: 662: 661: 647:Bernie Sanders 645:(ii) the main 634: 617: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 583:Good catch :) 578: 577: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 422: 421: 404: 377: 376: 356: 336: 284: 283: 220: 159: 158: 153: 143: 138: 121: 119: 116: 115: 114: 109: 101: 99: 94: 75: 74: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3477: 3466: 3463: 3462: 3460: 3450: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3435: 3434: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3392: 3391: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3375: 3374: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3326: 3325: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3302: 3299: 3293: 3290: 3289: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3273: 3270: 3269: 3262: 3259: 3256: 3252: 3250: 3247: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3214: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3188: 3184: 3181: 3175: 3174: 3172: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3149: 3148: 3145: 3142: 3141: 3136: 3135: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3119: 3118: 3099: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3040: 3036: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2946: 2939: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2859: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2842: 2841: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2775: 2774: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742:CompactSpacez 2738: 2733: 2730: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2713: 2712: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2698:CompactSpacez 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2672:Strong delete 2670: 2669: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2651: 2650: 2643: 2640: 2636: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2619: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2601: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2590: 2586: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2577: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2559: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2538: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2524:WP:PROPAGANDA 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2506: 2505: 2500: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2485: 2483: 2480: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2467: 2463: 2461: 2458: 2454: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2418: 2413: 2412: 2407: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2396: 2391: 2386: 2384: 2379: 2374: 2373: 2369: 2368: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2284: 2280: 2277: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2252: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2233: 2232: 2211: 2208: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2080: 2077: 2073: 2070: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2035: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2008: 2006: 2005:news coverage 2000: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1953: 1950: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1862: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1737:SharʿabSalam▼ 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1704:SharʿabSalam▼ 1701: 1700: 1697: 1695: 1693: 1691: 1689: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1623: 1618: 1617: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1517: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1488: 1486: 1482: 1480: 1479: 1472: 1467: 1465: 1462: 1455: 1453: 1447: 1444: 1443: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1431:SharʿabSalam▼ 1428: 1425: 1424: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1408: 1404: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1382:Paul Klinkman 1378: 1375: 1374: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344:SharʿabSalam▼ 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1331: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1257: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240:SharʿabSalam▼ 1236: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1215: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1175: 1172: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157:SharʿabSalam▼ 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1124: 1121: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1084: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049:SharʿabSalam▼ 1046: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1029:SharʿabSalam▼ 1026: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1010: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 987: 981: 978: 974: 967: 963: 960: 956: 953: 949: 946: 943: 937: 934: 930: 929: 926: 925: 924: 920: 916: 913: 908: 905: 902: 899: 896: 893: 890: 887: 884: 880: 879: 878: 875: 871: 870: 869: 868: 865: 861: 857: 853: 850: 848: 844: 840: 839:SharʿabSalam▼ 836: 832: 829: 828: 813: 810: 806: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 777: 773: 769: 766: 763: 760: 756: 754: 751: 747: 745: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 735: 731: 728: 725: 723: 717: 714: 711: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 697: 693: 689: 686: 682: 678: 676: 672: 670: 666: 665: 664: 663: 658: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 635: 633: 629: 625: 624:SharʿabSalam▼ 621: 618: 616: 613: 609: 605: 602: 601: 594: 590: 586: 582: 581: 580: 579: 576: 572: 568: 562: 557: 556: 543: 539: 535: 531: 530: 529: 525: 521: 520:SharʿabSalam▼ 517: 513: 510: 509: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 491: 490: 486: 482: 478: 477: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 457: 454: 450: 447: 446: 445: 441: 437: 426: 425: 424: 423: 420: 416: 412: 408: 405: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 378: 374: 370: 366: 362: 357: 354: 350: 346: 342: 337: 334: 330: 326: 322: 317: 316: 315: 314: 310: 306: 301: 297: 293: 292:VERIFIABILITY 289: 279: 275: 272: 269: 265: 261: 257: 254: 251: 248: 245: 242: 239: 236: 233: 229: 226: 225:Find sources: 221: 217: 213: 210: 204: 200: 196: 192: 187: 183: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 161: 157: 154: 151: 147: 144: 142: 139: 137: 134: 133: 132: 130: 125: 120: 113: 110: 108: 105: 98: 95: 93: 92: 88: 84: 80: 73: 71: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3438: 3436: 3393: 3378: 3372: 3327: 3291: 3271: 3193: 3155:Speedy keep. 3154: 3150: 3139: 3133: 3120: 2983: 2944: 2904:'s reply to 2899: 2860: 2843: 2776: 2731: 2714: 2671: 2652: 2560: 2539: 2511: 2507: 2477: 2471: 2421: 2383:Phil Griffin 2376:MSNBC host, 2352: 2348: 2338: 2297: 2296: 2288: 2287: 2278: 2253: 2234: 2153:not about me 2152: 2088: 2084: 2068: 2004: 2002: 1992: 1984: 1955: 1949:helping them 1817: 1813: 1809: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1771: 1642: 1622:Usedtobecool 1620: 1585: 1572:Connor Behan 1543: 1539: 1535: 1521:Connor Behan 1489: 1477: 1476: 1470: 1451: 1445: 1376: 1312: 1306: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1255: 1238:deletions.-- 1208: 1204: 1200: 1173: 1127:— Preceding 1122: 1085: 1064: 1017: 976: 965: 958: 951: 851: 830: 764: 761: 758: 752: 749: 743: 726: 721: 719: 709: 683: 680: 674: 668: 636: 619: 603: 494: 455: 406: 385: 295: 285: 273: 267: 259: 252: 246: 240: 234: 224: 211: 122: 118: 83:Pax:Vobiscum 79:no consensus 78: 76: 60: 57: 36: 3225:WP:SNOWBALL 3187:WP:SNOWBALL 2900:Comment to 2785:WP:Copyedit 2657::bloodofox: 2618:WP:NOTFORUM 2520:WP:COATRACK 2516:WP:ADVOCACY 2256:It becomes 2140:Jeff Weaver 1268:a topic is 1220:WP:COATRACK 1179:WP:COATRACK 1155:deletion.-- 1090:WP:COATRACK 394:Ad Orientem 250:free images 3177:consensus. 3095:SashiRolls 3039:SashiRolls 2988:SashiRolls 2639:Neutrality 2589:SashiRolls 2573:Neutrality 2457:SashiRolls 2378:Ed Schultz 2207:SashiRolls 2144:SashiRolls 2138:(and also 2076:SashiRolls 2031:SashiRolls 1985:References 1897:SashiRolls 1838:SashiRolls 1810:media bias 1266:discussing 1258:with Biden 1006:SashiRolls 874:SashiRolls 809:SashiRolls 734:SashiRolls 612:SashiRolls 3443:talk page 3420:Trackinfo 3398:Ylevental 3332:Tom Perez 3311:Ylevental 3297:Anne drew 3221:WP:RELIST 3159:WP:RELIST 2810:Slywriter 2760:Ylevental 2605:Trackinfo 2453:this edit 2426:Trackinfo 2322:Ylevental 2283:WP:WEIGHT 2089:Of course 2001:. MSNBC. 1951:to do so: 1870:Ylevental 1847:Slywriter 1719:Ylevental 1665:Ylevental 1603:Ylevental 1553:Ylevental 1407:WP:FRINGE 1401:Oh boy... 1274:reporting 1209:reactions 1073:JamieWhat 915:Slywriter 856:Slywriter 653:and (iv) 428:Strike as 66:talk page 3459:Category 3445:or in a 3277:Zaathras 2848:Jusdafax 2676:WP:SYNTH 2544:WP:SYNTH 2393:article. 2262:WP:SYNTH 1540:singular 1513:article. 1278:opinions 1218:is true 1205:opinions 1141:contribs 1129:unsigned 977:Politico 681:Sources: 459:contribs 390:WP:FORUM 209:View log 150:glossary 68:or in a 3394:Comment 3340:GoodDay 3328:Comment 3204:or non- 2777:Comment 2680:Jdcomix 2266:Wm335td 1805:NYTimes 1471:Comment 1403:WP:TIAC 1201:covered 959:suppose 950:Rather 620:Comment 604:Comment 585:GoodDay 561:GoodDay 534:GoodDay 512:GoodDay 499:GoodDay 497:valid. 463:WP:TALK 411:GoodDay 300:POVFORK 256:WP refs 244:scholar 182:protect 177:history 127:New to 3292:Delete 3173:Also: 2945:out of 2919:WP:RFC 2865:WP:GNG 2719:Rusf10 2561:Delete 2540:Delete 2508:Delete 2342:cause. 2339:Delete 2299:apolis 2254:Delete 2239:AaronY 2235:Delete 1823:17 Jan 1803:& 1797:Nation 1536:Delete 1473:then. 1183:Rafe87 1104:, and 1094:WP:DUE 1086:Delete 852:Remove 805:source 639:WP:DUE 467:Jahaza 436:Jahaza 228:Google 186:delete 3416:owned 3358:O3000 3206:WP:RS 3049:O3000 2621:O3000 2548:O3000 2489:WP:DR 2258:WP:OR 2136:MSNBC 1958:MSNBC 1410:KidAd 1329:Focus 1110:KidAd 1065:Merge 952:a lot 567:Bbb23 449:Bbb23 430:this 271:JSTOR 232:books 216:Stats 203:views 195:watch 191:links 16:< 3424:talk 3402:talk 3379:Talk 3362:talk 3344:talk 3315:talk 3281:talk 3272:Keep 3233:talk 3229:WMSR 3202:WP:V 3198:WP:V 3194:keep 3153:and 3151:Keep 3140:Talk 3121:Keep 3053:talk 3002:talk 2984:zero 2954:talk 2950:WMSR 2927:talk 2902:WMSR 2891:talk 2887:WMSR 2873:talk 2861:Keep 2852:talk 2844:Keep 2829:talk 2814:talk 2799:talk 2764:talk 2746:talk 2732:Keep 2723:talk 2715:Keep 2702:talk 2684:talk 2661:talk 2653:Keep 2625:talk 2609:talk 2567:and 2552:talk 2526:. - 2522:for 2512:Some 2478:Talk 2430:talk 2326:talk 2317:and 2290:Mini 2281:per 2279:Keep 2270:talk 2260:and 2243:talk 2161:talk 2157:WMSR 2155:. -- 2098:talk 2094:WMSR 2069:Done 1919:talk 1915:WMSR 1874:talk 1851:talk 1827:diff 1801:WaPo 1793:Keep 1779:asem 1755:talk 1741:talk 1723:talk 1708:talk 1669:talk 1651:talk 1643:None 1607:talk 1593:talk 1576:talk 1557:talk 1525:talk 1490:Keep 1459:talk 1446:Keep 1435:talk 1414:talk 1386:talk 1362:talk 1358:WMSR 1348:talk 1307:Keep 1290:talk 1286:WMSR 1270:much 1244:talk 1229:talk 1225:WMSR 1187:talk 1174:Keep 1161:talk 1137:talk 1123:Keep 1114:talk 1092:and 1088:Per 1077:talk 1053:talk 1033:talk 919:talk 860:talk 843:talk 831:Keep 772:talk 692:talk 628:talk 589:talk 571:talk 538:talk 524:talk 503:talk 485:talk 481:WMSR 471:talk 453:talk 440:talk 415:talk 407:Keep 398:talk 369:talk 365:WMSR 349:talk 345:WMSR 329:talk 325:WMSR 309:talk 305:WMSR 290:and 288:NPOV 264:FENS 238:news 199:logs 173:talk 169:edit 87:talk 3127:or 2921:. 2917:or 2533:🖋 2074:-- 1962:FEC 1405:... 1262:are 1004:-- 732:-- 685:48. 278:TWL 207:– ( 3461:: 3426:) 3404:) 3376:• 3364:) 3346:) 3317:) 3283:) 3235:) 3137:• 3055:) 3004:) 2978:A 2956:) 2948:-- 2929:) 2893:) 2875:) 2854:) 2831:) 2816:) 2801:) 2766:) 2748:) 2725:) 2704:) 2686:) 2674:- 2663:) 2627:) 2611:) 2554:) 2528:Mr 2475:• 2432:) 2328:) 2272:) 2245:) 2163:) 2100:) 2092:-- 1921:) 1876:) 1853:) 1786:) 1757:) 1743:) 1725:) 1710:) 1671:) 1653:) 1625:☎️ 1609:) 1595:) 1578:) 1559:) 1527:) 1481:iz 1437:) 1416:) 1388:) 1364:) 1350:) 1292:) 1246:) 1231:) 1189:) 1181:. 1163:) 1143:) 1139:• 1116:) 1108:. 1100:, 1079:) 1071:. 1055:) 1047:. 1035:) 1027:. 921:) 862:) 845:) 774:) 757:: 748:: 694:) 630:) 591:) 573:) 540:) 526:) 505:) 495:is 487:) 473:) 442:) 432:is 417:) 400:) 371:) 363:. 351:) 343:. 331:) 323:. 311:) 258:) 201:| 197:| 193:| 189:| 184:| 180:| 175:| 171:| 89:) 43:. 3422:( 3400:( 3360:( 3342:( 3313:( 3279:( 3258:¶ 3246:¶ 3231:( 3213:¶ 3051:( 3000:( 2952:( 2940:: 2936:@ 2925:( 2889:( 2871:( 2850:( 2827:( 2812:( 2797:( 2762:( 2744:( 2721:( 2700:( 2682:( 2659:( 2623:( 2607:( 2550:( 2531:X 2496:¶ 2428:( 2324:( 2268:( 2241:( 2159:( 2096:( 1917:( 1872:( 1849:( 1829:) 1821:( 1784:t 1782:( 1777:M 1753:( 1739:( 1721:( 1706:( 1667:( 1649:( 1605:( 1591:( 1574:( 1555:( 1523:( 1478:L 1461:) 1457:( 1433:( 1412:( 1384:( 1360:( 1346:( 1326:m 1323:a 1320:e 1317:r 1314:D 1288:( 1242:( 1227:( 1185:( 1159:( 1135:( 1112:( 1075:( 1051:( 1031:( 972:. 917:( 858:( 841:( 803:( 770:( 690:( 657:. 626:( 587:( 569:( 563:: 559:@ 536:( 522:( 501:( 483:( 469:( 456:· 451:( 438:( 413:( 396:( 367:( 347:( 327:( 307:( 282:) 274:· 268:· 260:· 253:· 247:· 241:· 235:· 230:( 222:( 219:) 212:· 205:) 167:( 152:) 148:( 85:( 49:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

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

Index