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

201:

down to mere facts, it tracks an important historical fact of media bias against a political figure who opposes concentrated wealth and power. Regardless of one’s politics, there’s a strong socio-cultural need to document the moments when the power elite are exploitatively self-serving in their efforts to shape people’s subjectivities and voting tendencies. It doesn’t matter what any particular social body’s, or institution’s, organized or intended effects are. What’s clear is that the mainstream media—made up of workers and managers who graduate from elite universities—have repeatedly shown clear bias against Bernie Sanders. This article shows that, and there is a real social need to aggregate and present the evidence of this historical fact. If Knowledge isn’t here in order to reveal the truth of the unfolding history of the present—especially as it profoundly affects our social lives—then what the hell is the point?

172:

1338:

Sanders campaign would be more appropriately treated (in terms of weight, etc.) in the context of existing articles about the campaign. Both of these points are defensible in terms of Knowledge policy (and in fact do not necessarily exclude each other). But strictly in terms of arguments for or against deletion, I think the "keep" side has the stronger argument, because the concerns evoked by the delete side can be remedied by measures short of deletion: editing, renaming, merging. That being so, I'd normally close this discussion as "keep", but I am reluctant to do so here because the apparently widespread canvassing makes it difficult to ascertain how many opinions should really be taken into account. This means the article is, for now, kept for lack of consensus to delete it.

535:

adequately documented from sources already cited in the article. One weirdness about the article is that while it gives examples of favorable and unfavorable press coverage at different dates, it evokes a picture of a steady backdrop depicted from differing viewpoints, rather than a press "temperature" changing over time. I don't see a good way to fix that with available sources, but that's not grounds for deleting the article. The phenomenon of media intervening in elections is significant in the real world, so documenting it in wikipedia is important. The massive, propaganda-ish tv coverage (often with distorted sound) of the so-called

1242:

keep camp has countered this argument by saying that even if some sources may be inappropriate, there are still enough reliable sources to satisfy notability criteria - some keeps have acknowledged that the sourcing is inadequate owing to the presence of unreliable sources. Finally, some say that a topic about media bias by mainstream sources cannot be properly discussed without using non-mainstream sources. Some people have proposed that such a topic is ideally covered by academic sources. There has been little detailed discussion on particular sources however.

500: 36: 1212:

canvassing efforts that appear to be mainly aimed at keeping the article. There has been a bit of discussion during the discussion (ha!) about the scale of the canvassing and whether it was entirely one sided in favour of keep; it seems like the conclusion is that while there were a few canvassed votes that were pro delete the bulk of the canvassing appears to have favoured the keep camp.

1311:; there has been not much discussion on this aspect. Regarding the POV issues, the general tenor is that a lot of people acknowledge POV issues and advocacy problems in the article but there is no consensus that a wholesale deletion should be the fix for the issue. On the other hand, enough concerns about the name exist that a dedicated rename discussion is warranted, so 1134:

are masking that with ridiculous, nit-picking complaints about exact phrasing of certain sentences. The article is as unbiased as an article detailing a conspiracy of bias can be, and rephrasing to soften the facts would skew the accuracy. The article should stay, and if there are any truly constructive suggestions, they may be considered.

558: 246:-Bernie Sanders reached 4 million donors in the 2020 election cycle faster than any candidate in history, despite the fact there are almost 20 contenders in the primary this cycle. Media coverage (quantified by airtime) on Bernie has not been in any way proportional to this popularity when compared to other candidates' airtime. 1295:

concerns there are also merger suggestions. There has been a bit of discussion on new names, as there are arguments either pro or con particular names and there are a number of new names proposed here. Some deletes have also such issues, by asserting that the topic is unfounded without explaining why

1278:

Among the keep arguments are also many statements that do not address the delete arguments, such as claims that deletion is being sought for out of personal dislike, that the information in question is important and not propaganda and that an election is pending and that there is in fact a conspiracy

1173:

that would justify keeping or otherwise changing it. It is not primarily a discussion on whether the allegations contained in the article are valid, and if the article is deleted it does not automatically imply that Knowledge considers the allegations in the article invalid; nor does keeping it imply

1337:

Numerically, opinions are about 3 to 1 in favor of keeping. In terms of arguments, there are valid points being made on both sides, to wit: the topic has plenty of reliable sources and is therefore notable, versus: the title and presentation of the content are not-neutral, and this (sub)topic of the

1266:

create analogous articles, rather than treating as a problem, or whether the existence of this article should indeed be treated as a precedent. There have been some subthreads in the discussion about this question as the concern is that creating a precedent for this kind of pages would create a huge

792:

I'd like to add, you conveniently forgot to mention this: "These tags are not an official Knowledge policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion." So, you're blaming me for criticizing inofficial procedures? Contrary to how you frame it, there's actually not a rule to add

93:

Deleting this page would only add to the media blackout in the mainstream media for Bernie Sanders. It's ridiculous, you can randomly sample mainstream outlets and you will see that they either negatively cover or pretend that Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign isn't happening. If you want a more indepth

66:

The NPOV concerns seem to be about style ("soap-boxy") rather than content, and thus easily corrected. A neutral point of view presents facts in a disinterested way. That does not guarantee that all competitors will be supported equally by the facts. If one candidate has encountered disproportionate

1290:

In addition, a number of people have suggested that the title of the article is an issue more than its topic as it suggests that the media are in fact biased against Bernie Sanders and that "media" may be too vague a concept, thus some people have advanced rename proposals (some have prefixed these

358:

Is Knowledge not a place of record? This article records the bias that is happening because of the lack of a public institution free of corporate control. Knowledge is one of the public's few places where our words are heard. Suppressing this article would make it harder for public journalism to be

324:

This is an excellent compilation of media bias examples. It should not be deleted, it should be built upon. I agree with others that deleting this content contributes to the well-documented blackout of the Sanders campaign by corporate sponsored media outlets. Knowledge should NOT join the ranks of

200:

Let’s concede that the article has issues of tone (at the very least) that need to be addressed. Then, let’s recognize that this article serves an important function to counter the problematic effects of the overwhelming power held by multinational media conglomerates. When this article is whittled

171:

126:

1250:

weight to that consideration. Among the keep arguments that were offered in return is that such issues can be resolved by editing or cleanup, or the appending of some more critical views; I see that some keepers have added such information. Also a bunch of vague denials that don't address specific

1215:

It is of course difficult to tell whether any given vote was a product of canvassing, and it's not necessarily always correct to disregard someone's stance simply because they were called here from another place. Thus I am not going to attempt at determining what the vote tally would look like w/o

1133:

This article is detailing a much-discussed and documented issue in the 2016 election cycle, and continuing into the current election. It is well-written, includes the proper citations, and is factually correct. The arguments I'm seeing for deletion appear to take issue with the subject itself, and

927:

Hmm, alright if you say so. I'll just end with restating an indisputable fact and let's others draw their own conclusions. The post is titled -"Someone put together one hell of a Knowledge article that details the media bias against Bernie going all the way back to his 2016 campaign. Wiki wants to

1241:

Point a) has spawned a number of comments about whether there are reliable sources covering that topic, with concerns that a number of "sources" are simply people complaining about their preferred/most disliked candidate not receiving their due/well-deserved criticism (delete as appropriate). The

1091:

Well, that's your opinion, imho the user made a good argument why the article is noteworthy. Anyway, his vote should count. And even if it's against the lofty ideals of Knowledge, in practise, these discussions boil down to a vote. The number of votes is important, showing consent or not, or else

70:

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

690:

I want to add: "An editor has expressed a concern" is a WEASEL phrase! WHO, exactly? We wouldn't leave such an anonymous concern unedited in an article, and thus it is not appriate in an AfD, neither. We shouldn't let consensus building become witchhunts. If there had been any consensus about it

215:

It needs to be polished, but it is documenting current events and is very well researched. Deleting it would only contribute to the media blackout that is undeniably happening. I'm not sure I want my money supporting an encyclopedia that suppresses information, so I'm going to wait until this is

417:

This article is fair and factual. It does not betray the norms of any other informative article on the subject. To DELETE this page WOULD be revealing a lack of neutrality. It would prove what we already know: that Knowledge is a prop and a tool of the establishment. See this interview by Chris

258:

Therefore, no one can deny that in American history, Bernie ran for president in the 2020 cycle, and during his run, a group of individuals formed a massive cry on the internet calling attention to media bias. At the very least, everyone can agree that this group has indeed formed and that this

1318:

PS: In case people wonder why it took so little to analyze the discussion and formulate a close, that's because I began writing it before the actual closing time, under the assumption that the status of the discussion was unlikely to drastically change during the last two hours. And yes, I did

534:

sourcing is solid, topic is wp:notable (many independent sources have published about it). Writing style editorializes in places and is overfamiliar in others (referring to Sen. Sanders as "Bernie") but that can be cleaned up. I believe most of the stuff criticized in the afd as SYNTH can be

440:

Instead of “Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders” perhaps the article should be called “Accusations of Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders” or simply “Bernie Sander’s Media Relationship.” As long as the article itself is strictly informative and provides clear sources it should be kept up. I think

475:

Information age seen some ugly turns where ignoring or denying information is a new weapon. Article has proven that such selective media propaganda existed and probably way more against one political candidate or ant newsworthy entity. There are other examples where new misia of country have

455:

This topic has enough content to warrant its own heading. And having the depth and breadth of information provided gives the topic a level of seriousness that wouldn’t be possible if it were buried on some other Bernie page. These name suggestions would keep the topic more in line with other

141:

This page should be kept as it gathers in one place the coverage on a legitimate topic that does not get the coverage it merits by the mainstream media. As with any topic on this site, viewers are free to disagree with the conclusions or discount any or all cited sources. Isn't this what the

1211:

There are many many concerns about canvassing and sockpuppetry, bolstered by the striking of several votes as being sock votes, the contribution history of many editors especially on the keep side which appear to have been dormant before this discussion. Plus the links shown here to offsite

1207:

There are 64 "keeps" or "don't delete"s, 1 weak keep/merge, about 22 (+1, the nom) "delete"s and 10 "merge", some of which advocate either a merge or a delete. There are also a bunch of "move"s. Add to that the pattern of votes on the talk page. I'll admit that given the sheer length of the

912:

SUSPICIOUN is not unwarranted but to accuse any user here of having been canvassed, a rather intimidating move that's against Knowledge's goal of broad participation, you should at least provide evidence that that user had read that. Apart from this, it is disputed if that report at Reddit

631:

I just boldly removed an unsigned, anonymous "note" which raised an unsourced accusation against an IP user. Whatever one thinks about IPs voting here (I'm against that), to apply such pressure, exclusively on 'keep' voters, without even signing the bad faithed suspicion, is outrageous!

396:

I agree. That is part of the reason I included the criticism section as there is not universal agreement about the bias. However, according to most sources—including the mainstream sources, there is some form of bias—albeit for different reasons (they claim) than the campaign claims.

476:

completely ignored movements from other countries such as protests in HK, yellow vest movements but the ignoring of Senator Bernie Sanders when it comes to the primaries is very prominent and is well merited by the numerous resources and citations included in the article.

1199:

The discussion was semiprotected shortly after it began due to canvassing and sockpuppetry. This presumably explains why there are so many comments - all of them keeps - on the talk page. Way too many of them are not policy- or guideline-based, though; we don't

441:

totally removing this is too much of an attempt to make Knowledge look politically neutral. Knowledge is a wonderful source of information and shouldn’t seek to project a particular public image. If the article has merit, which I believe it does, then keep it.

973:

I agree it wasn't ideal. But let's not be too nitpicking about social media. And as this article proves, traditional media is biased, too. At Knowledge, we have to deal with this as good as possible. That's no reason to throw the kid out with the bathtub.

1233:, c) that it encourages the creation of analogous articles for other candidates, d) that its existence gives undue weight to the idea that the media are against Bernie Sanders and a less commonly cited one e) that the topic constitutes a 156:

While I agree the article could use some polish to make it fell more journalistic, it's meticulously well sourced and researched. Letting the Knowledge community work on it rather than simply deleting it would be the correct response.

239:

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

1072:

This is, in fact, not a good point, because it's doesn't indicate a policy-based rationale for keeping. Moreover, no one is counting the votes, because as the big banner at the top indicates: deletion discussions are not votes.

304:

I believe the Article should stay up, it is well researched but I am dumbfounded that the author did not include sources for the claims made. Seems like this could have been avoided if sources were added before publishing.

378:

This page should definitely be retained. If anyone refutes the information presented on this page, they are free to create a counter-point page, which of course should be subjected to the same vetting process as this page.

867:

Which user account? There have been lots of accusations of canvassing against users in this thread, in some cases without any evidence. Quite unusual for an AfD, I have to say. That's more typical for RfAs and the like.

757:

It isn't a threat, it is a warning. Had I blocked you for it then you would be saying that I never gave you a warning. Yes, it is appropriate. As for tone...you seem to set that with the title of this thread..."Who the

717:

are responsible for finding out. If you remove another one then you can expect to be blocked for being disruptive. Editors do not have to sign those additions and the admins that decide the final consensus will weigh

1270:

Point e) has not gained much discussion outside of Frankie1969's comment and Mithridates's point about this not being well-defined. There are a few more comments about whether individual parts of the article violate

1106:

These protections sometimes happen when people get canvassed off-wiki, as may have happened here. But the protection can also get in the way of regulars !voting. Deacon Vorbis: yes !votes in afd's do get counted.

1178:

as far as our article content is concerned and thus we strongly frown on making claims without any evidence supporting them. Relatedly, Knowledge deletion discussions are not a mere vote-count; Knowledge works on

740:

Berean, do you think threatening me, an occasional editor who just raised some reasonable concerns, with your admin privileges is appropriate? Imho neither the tone nor the pressure you try to apply here is ok.

235:

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

259:

collective has publicly called attention to perceived media bias. That alone is grounds for this page to exist: to detail this very moment in history. It is happening now. It is what we are all typing about.

1245:

Points b) and d) are influenced by a perception that the article in its current form is just a compilation of all complaints that have been made against the media coverage of the Sanders campaign and gives

1158: 1153:

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

1299:

There are also merger arguments as in other campaigns commentary on media coverage is covered in the campaign articles; one counterargument is that moving the content of this article over to, say,

1307:

Now, onto the actual conclusion. Overall, on the notability question there has been a fair amount of discussion, but some people have offered unrebutted sources about the topic that satisfy

67:

media censorship for their level of popular support, noting that fact does not count as lack of neutrality. What counts is whether claims are supported, and the content here is compelling.

1183:

and when assessing a consensus it is also important to assess the strength of the arguments offered and how they line up with the applicable policies, guidelines and custom and practice.

98:. I support Knowledge with periodic donations because I believe in the openness of knowledge and information. Deleting this page, would be a bad move on their part, per my point of view. 1371:

I'm honestly a bit shocked at how easily this was done. I expected this to be alot harder to determine an answer towards. Good job the admins at such a professional and well done job.--

959:

Instead the topic is american politics and someone highlighting this discussion on a partisan forum was not ideal. At a minimum, it has added unnecessary noise to the conversation.

339:

Agreed. It's relevant and the article lays out the facts devoid as much as is possible of voice or obvious ideological coloring of the details. It makes it's own case convincingly.

1279:

to "black out" the Sanders campaign - none of these arguments are by themselves a reason for keeping an article or rebuttals of the delete ones. There are also statements based on

1255:-based deletion. A related issue is that the whole concept may be part of a directed marketing campaign; this subtopic has spawned a bit of heated discussion without much evidence. 1287:

that may be grounded in policy or guideline, but do not actually address the delete arguments, or arguments based on notability arguments that do not address POV-based arguments.

776:

I trust editors reading this to make up their own mind if what you're doing in this thread is a good faithed and warranted warning or a shameless attempt at intimidation.

262:

This article can grow, detailing both evidence supporting bias and negating it, but the page should not be deleted, unless we can somehow delete this moment in history.

1049:

Oh, so it's meant for unconfirmed users to voice their keep or delete opinions here? Ok, I see. I wasn't familiar with this, haven't seen a protected AfD before.

1208:

discussion I might have miscounted a little but nothing that would dramatically swing the assessment. Overall it's about 2-1 in favour of keeping, however...

290:

Article must stay due to the numerous reference and citations and that they are prooved the gist of the article. As a matter of truth the article must stay.

835:

Your assumption that I would disrupt other editors proves your bad faith attitude. Imho it's high time a higher instance looks into your behaviour here.

1300: 634:

I'd like the buraucrats to keep an eye on this discussion and request advice from more experienced users. Where's the right board to raise my concern?

1357:

A sensible closure for a very messy AfD. Obviously not the outcome I would've preferred, but hard to argue with this kind of careful explanation. —

1291:

as "merger" proposals; I'll treat a proposal to merge an article into a non-existent other article as equivalent to a rename proposal). In light of

853:

The user account in question was made yesterday with the only purpose to !vote in this discussion. That is something that warrants pointing out. –

1002:

You must keep this article. It is absolutely relevant, accurate, and of high importance to millions of American citizens and/or Knowledge users.

897:

Given that the discussion has a link to external canvassing to a Pro Bernie sub-reddit, accusations of SPA and canvassing are not unwarranted.

1386: 1366: 1350: 1328: 1143: 1116: 1108: 1101: 1086: 1058: 1044: 1030: 1011: 983: 968: 951: 937: 922: 906: 877: 862: 844: 830: 802: 785: 771: 750: 735: 700: 685: 671: 644: 620: 599: 591: 578: 548: 540: 485: 465: 450: 430: 409: 388: 368: 348: 334: 314: 299: 285: 271: 225: 210: 195: 181: 166: 151: 136: 121: 107: 83: 17: 1082: 574: 1275:, but there is a difference between saying that all of the article violates it and between saying that some of the article violates it. 1170: 1162: 1017:

Stester, good point, but you need to post this on the AfD page for it to count. This is the AfD's talk page instead. And pls add *

676:

That may be so, but SIGNING edits is an even older and stonger standard here! Anonymous accusations have no place in discussions.

1201: 659: 95: 590:, could someone please add the !vote, it is not up to Deacon Vorbis to decide that someone else isn't allowed to comment. 722:

and meatpuppets or canvassed !votes appropriately. You getting upset and cussing about your own ignorance is your fault.

1259: 691:

being ok to add unsigned notes, i'd like to see that discussion. That may have become a habit, but it's a bad one.

1166: 1379: 1225:

The delete arguments offered are that a) the topic is inadequately sourced due to overuse, b) that it violates

1112: 615: 595: 544: 79: 942:

Imho there's nothing especially wrong with that title, even if the NYT sure would headline that differently.

709:, you created your account in 2005 and if you haven't learned to use the tab for page history then that is a 191: 103: 1324: 1175: 1078: 825: 766: 730: 570: 506: 281: 117: 42: 384: 1237:

that assembles disparate sources to drawn conclusions that cannot be properly attributed to the sources.

330: 221: 162: 446: 206: 177: 75: 1007: 539:

was another such intervention and our article section about it doesn't go into it nearly deeply enough.

461: 404: 310: 187: 99: 481: 364: 344: 295: 277: 255:-A tenured MSNBC News Anchor has given testimony on record confirming these biased practices at MSNBC. 186:

The fact that this is marked for review and deletion is proof of the point detailed in the first place

132: 113: 1251:

issues. There have been counter-rebuttals that the concerns about POV may be severe enough to justify

380: 1139: 859: 668: 326: 249:-Huge swaths of individuals on various forums like Reddit are noticing this lack of proportionality. 217: 158: 442: 202: 173: 143: 1372: 1359: 1234: 1180: 1003: 964: 933: 902: 607: 457: 426: 306: 263: 147: 477: 360: 340: 291: 128: 1320: 1074: 820: 810: 761: 725: 566: 267: 1135: 1292: 1280: 1230: 1097: 1054: 1026: 979: 947: 918: 873: 840: 798: 781: 746: 696: 681: 640: 398: 1284: 1272: 1247: 1040: 793:

unsigned notes, it's just a bad habit! And I raised arguments why this should be changed.

1334:

I concur. Here is my closing statement, typed up at about the same time as Jo-Jo Eumerus:

1035:

The only reason this talk page exists is because the AfD page itself is semi-protected.--

855: 664: 1341: 960: 929: 898: 422: 1308: 1252: 1226: 719: 710: 655: 627:

Who the hell is raising unsourced and unsigned accusations against participants here?

1258:

Regarding point c) not much evidence has been cited other than the existence of the

814: 1174:

that we consider the arguments as valid. In addition, on Knowledge we strive for

1093: 1067: 1050: 1022: 975: 943: 914: 869: 836: 794: 777: 742: 706: 692: 677: 651: 636: 536: 1036: 419: 252:-A large group calling attention to this phenomenon has manifested and grown 956:

If we were discussing "mating habits of bumblebees", I would agree with you.

913:

constitutes canvassing at all, not a fact, as you misleadingly state it.

71:

this article needs to be polished, and the content kept and built on.

817:

would be why I would block you if you reverted the other editors again.

1303:(other targets have been proposed) would induce undue weight concerns. 1021:

to your text, to make it easier for those who're counting the votes.

1262:

article. Plus a question has been raised whether in such a case one

1159:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders

325:

the mainstream media. Keeping truthful sources is too important.

1216:

canvassing and will instead focus on the arguments offered here.

606:

The deleting admin can see the votes here on the talk page. ~~

1157:

So I'll begin with noting that the scope of the discussion at

494: 30: 662:) and is not usually added with your own signature. – 142:

democratization of information access should be about?

654:

Pointing out that a participant in a discussion is a

1169:

that would justify its removal, as well as assorted

1204:here and we don't battle to uncover the truth; the 1167:Knowledge:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion 359:heard. I am a current supporter of Knowledge. 127:heard. I am a current supporter of Knowledge. 27:Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2019 8: 1313:no consensus, but begin a rename discussion 420:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDPrpKDjQ5U 1186: 94:understanding of the context and numbers, 1319:re-read the discussion prior to closing. 1301:Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign 1189: 1165:meets the various criteria laid out at 1092:there would be no need to count them. 96:Luke Savage does an excellent job here 276:I agree, this page needs to be kept. 7: 1161:is to determine whether the article 18:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion 809:Those tags might not be policy but 527:Please add this !vote to the page: 1129:Valuable article, silly complaints 928:delete it and is taking comments" 74:Thanks for the time reading this. 24: 1171:Knowledge policies and guidelines 1163:Media bias against Bernie Sanders 418:Hedges and Helen Buyniski --: --> 556: 498: 216:resolved before donating again. 34: 660:Template:Single-purpose account 436:Keep, but perhaps a name change 1: 1387:23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC) 1367:18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC) 1351:18:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC) 1329:17:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC) 1296:this would justify deletion. 1144:06:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 1117:18:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 1102:17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 1087:16:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 1059:17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 1045:16:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 1031:16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 1012:14:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 984:22:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 969:19:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 952:18:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 938:18:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 923:18:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 907:17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 878:17:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 863:16:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 845:22:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 831:19:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 803:14:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 786:22:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 772:19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 751:14:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 736:13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 701:12:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 686:12:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 672:11:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 645:10:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 621:12:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC) 600:17:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 579:16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 549:07:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 486:23:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 466:22:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 451:18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 431:21:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 410:21:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 389:17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 369:16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 349:18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 335:16:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 315:09:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 300:22:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 286:15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 272:03:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 226:08:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 211:05:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 196:05:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 182:05:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 167:00:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 152:20:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 137:16:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 122:15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 108:01:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 84:23:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC) 1191:Analysis of voting patterns 521:to reactivate your request. 509:has been answered. Set the 320:Truth should not be deleted 57:to reactivate your request. 45:has been answered. Set the 1405: 1260:Trump derangement syndrome 658:is fairly standard (see 456:Knowledge topics. Keep! 112:I agree, Keep the page. 656:single-purpose account 1267:maintenance overhead. 243:The facts are these: 532:Keep, edit for style 1202:right great wrongs 815:disruptive editing 1349: 1222: 1221: 1149:Closure statement 705:(admin response) 619: 525: 524: 61: 60: 1396: 1384: 1377: 1364: 1362: 1348: 1346: 1339: 1187: 1071: 998:Keep the article 828: 823: 769: 764: 733: 728: 711:competency issue 617: 614: 612: 564: 560: 559: 516: 512: 502: 501: 495: 471:Keep the article 400:Andrew Z. Colvin 52: 48: 38: 37: 31: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1380: 1373: 1360: 1358: 1342: 1340: 1223: 1192: 1151: 1131: 1065: 1000: 826: 821: 767: 762: 731: 726: 629: 616: 608: 557: 555: 528: 514: 510: 499: 493: 473: 438: 376: 356: 322: 233: 91: 50: 46: 35: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1402: 1400: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1361:Rhododendrites 1354: 1353: 1335: 1305: 1304: 1297: 1288: 1276: 1268: 1256: 1243: 1227:WP:NOT#SOAPBOX 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1185: 1150: 1147: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1109:67.164.113.165 1063: 1062: 1061: 999: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 957: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 818: 790: 789: 788: 774: 759: 723: 628: 625: 624: 623: 610:CAPTAIN MEDUSA 604: 603: 602: 592:67.164.113.165 582: 581: 552: 551: 541:67.164.113.165 526: 523: 522: 503: 492: 489: 472: 469: 437: 434: 415: 414: 413: 412: 375: 372: 355: 352: 321: 318: 232: 229: 90: 87: 76:Naturanaturans 59: 58: 39: 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1401: 1388: 1385: 1383: 1378: 1376: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1363: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1347: 1345: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321:Jo-Jo Eumerus 1316: 1314: 1310: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1274: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1249: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1188: 1184: 1182: 1177: 1176:Verifiability 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1155: 1148: 1146: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1128: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075:Deacon Vorbis 1069: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1009: 1005: 997: 985: 981: 977: 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 958: 955: 954: 953: 949: 945: 941: 940: 939: 935: 931: 926: 925: 924: 920: 916: 911: 910: 909: 908: 904: 900: 879: 875: 871: 866: 865: 864: 861: 858: 857: 852: 846: 842: 838: 834: 833: 832: 829: 824: 822:Berean Hunter 816: 812: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 800: 796: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 773: 770: 765: 763:Berean Hunter 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 748: 744: 739: 738: 737: 734: 729: 727:Berean Hunter 721: 716: 712: 708: 704: 703: 702: 698: 694: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 670: 667: 666: 661: 657: 653: 650: 649: 648: 646: 642: 638: 635: 626: 622: 618: 613: 611: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 586: 585: 584: 583: 580: 576: 572: 568: 567:Deacon Vorbis 563: 554: 553: 550: 546: 542: 538: 533: 530: 529: 520: 517:parameter to 508: 504: 497: 496: 490: 488: 487: 483: 479: 470: 468: 467: 463: 459: 453: 452: 448: 444: 435: 433: 432: 428: 424: 421: 411: 408: 407: 402: 401: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 386: 382: 373: 371: 370: 366: 362: 353: 351: 350: 346: 342: 337: 336: 332: 328: 319: 317: 316: 312: 308: 302: 301: 297: 293: 288: 287: 283: 279: 274: 273: 269: 265: 260: 256: 253: 250: 247: 244: 241: 237: 230: 228: 227: 223: 219: 213: 212: 208: 204: 198: 197: 193: 189: 188:Leoncscott543 184: 183: 179: 175: 169: 168: 164: 160: 154: 153: 149: 145: 139: 138: 134: 130: 124: 123: 119: 115: 110: 109: 105: 101: 100:Sanwal Yousaf 97: 88: 86: 85: 81: 77: 72: 68: 65: 56: 53:parameter to 44: 40: 33: 32: 26: 19: 1381: 1374: 1343: 1317: 1312: 1306: 1263: 1235:WP:SYNTHESIS 1224: 1156: 1152: 1132: 1018: 1001: 896: 854: 714: 663: 633: 630: 609: 587: 561: 531: 518: 507:edit request 491:edit request 474: 454: 439: 416: 405: 399: 377: 357: 338: 323: 303: 289: 278:Masilvas2000 275: 261: 257: 254: 251: 248: 245: 242: 238: 234: 214: 199: 185: 170: 155: 140: 125: 114:Masilvas2000 111: 92: 73: 69: 63: 62: 54: 43:edit request 811:refactoring 537:Dean scream 381:InterwebsMC 1344:Sandstein 1293:WP:POVFORK 1281:WP:SOFIXIT 1231:WP:POVFORK 511:|answered= 327:Joules1971 218:Meteloides 159:Rsilvergun 47:|answered= 1181:Consensus 961:Slywriter 930:Slywriter 899:Slywriter 758:hell...". 588:Reopening 443:Acapriola 423:Clbcarman 203:Shaunzito 174:Shaunzito 144:Centavo01 1285:WP:PAPER 1273:WP:SYNTH 1248:WP:UNDUE 1229:or is a 1004:Stester2 856:Thjarkur 665:Thjarkur 562:Not done 458:Tmanger1 307:Tmemmeri 264:Genos892 478:Bhantol 374:KEEP!!! 361:Donnyv7 341:Procint 292:Bhantol 129:Donnyv7 1309:WP:GNG 1264:should 1253:WP:TNT 1094:Gray62 1083:videos 1079:carbon 1068:Gray62 1051:Gray62 1023:Gray62 976:Gray62 944:Gray62 915:Gray62 870:Gray62 860:(talk) 837:Gray62 827:(talk) 795:Gray62 778:Gray62 768:(talk) 743:Gray62 732:(talk) 707:Gray62 693:Gray62 678:Gray62 669:(talk) 637:Gray62 575:videos 571:carbon 1136:Blpme 1037:Bbb23 515:|ans= 505:This 64:Keep: 51:|ans= 41:This 16:< 1375:Will 1325:talk 1283:and 1140:talk 1113:talk 1098:talk 1055:talk 1041:talk 1027:talk 1019:keep 1008:talk 980:talk 965:talk 948:talk 934:talk 919:talk 903:talk 874:talk 841:talk 813:and 799:talk 782:talk 747:talk 720:SPAs 697:talk 682:talk 641:talk 596:talk 545:talk 482:talk 462:talk 447:talk 427:talk 406:Talk 385:talk 365:talk 354:Keep 345:talk 331:talk 311:talk 296:talk 282:talk 268:talk 231:KEEP 222:talk 207:talk 192:talk 178:talk 163:talk 148:talk 133:talk 118:talk 104:talk 89:Keep 80:talk 1365:\\ 715:You 565:. – 513:or 49:or 1327:) 1315:. 1142:) 1115:) 1100:) 1085:) 1081:• 1057:) 1043:) 1029:) 1010:) 982:) 967:) 950:) 936:) 921:) 905:) 876:) 843:) 819:— 801:) 784:) 760:— 749:) 724:— 713:. 699:) 684:) 647:i 643:) 598:) 577:) 573:• 547:) 519:no 484:) 464:) 449:) 429:) 403:• 387:) 367:) 347:) 333:) 313:) 298:) 284:) 270:) 224:) 209:) 194:) 180:) 165:) 150:) 135:) 120:) 106:) 82:) 55:no 1382:C 1323:( 1138:( 1111:( 1096:( 1077:( 1073:– 1070:: 1066:@ 1053:( 1039:( 1025:( 1006:( 978:( 963:( 946:( 932:( 917:( 901:( 872:( 839:( 797:( 780:( 745:( 695:( 680:( 652: 639:( 594:( 569:( 543:( 480:( 460:( 445:( 425:( 383:( 363:( 343:( 329:( 309:( 294:( 280:( 266:( 220:( 205:( 190:( 176:( 161:( 146:( 131:( 116:( 102:( 78:(

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

Knowledge

talk:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders - Knowledge

Index