This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because I added many sources that show that there is excessive media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders. Clearly, most of the sources say that most coverage of Sanders is positive, and has nothing to do with Media bias against Bernie Sanders -- Ylevental ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Besides the fact they both deal with media coverage of Sanders and the current discussion is to rename the article to a neutral topic of media coverage. That the bias article contains information regarding in favor of Sanders and would best be there. Thus it duplicates material found in the "bias" article including section for section recreations such as Later campaign months, Harvard study, Identity crisis, and was entirely created to cause issues due to being unhappy that the bias article was not deleted. Yeah, this is a duplicate article. Your own comments at
Talk:Media bias against Bernie Sanders#Created a new article to show how ridiculous this controversy is shows this.--
Will
C
20:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Another issue with this article is it is a direct violation of
WP:POVFORK.--
Will
C
20:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I guess, but is media coverage of Bernie Sanders in general that notable for an entire article? Unless there is some proven major conspiracy that shows that Bernie receives too much positive or negative bias, it's not really notable at all.
Ylevental (
talk)
20:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Notability has been covered. That is no longer a topic of debate. There are enough sources to discuss issues that WP:GNG has been established. This is a content forking based on personal bias and should either be deleted or merged.-- Will C 21:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
-
Ylevental can you point me towards the many sources you've added? In my looking at a
comparison I'm seeing one (maybe two) new sources and no actual new examples. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I thought I added more, but miscounted. However, most of the media coverage of Sanders clearly isn't negative (unless it's justified as such)
Ylevental (
talk)
21:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Based on content alone it did, in my judgement as a sysop, qualify for speedy deletion. However because the page this was taken from is a
redirect target I have just redirected. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ Barkeep49: That is fine with me. That was my original attempt but it was reverted. Instead of a full discussion, I just went with the speedy to speedy this up.-- Will C 22:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Based on content alone it did, in my judgement as a sysop, qualify for speedy deletion. However because the page this was taken from is a
redirect target I have just redirected. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I thought I added more, but miscounted. However, most of the media coverage of Sanders clearly isn't negative (unless it's justified as such)
Ylevental (
talk)
21:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I guess, but is media coverage of Bernie Sanders in general that notable for an entire article? Unless there is some proven major conspiracy that shows that Bernie receives too much positive or negative bias, it's not really notable at all.
Ylevental (
talk)
20:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Another issue with this article is it is a direct violation of
WP:POVFORK.--
Will
C
20:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because I added many sources that show that there is excessive media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders. Clearly, most of the sources say that most coverage of Sanders is positive, and has nothing to do with Media bias against Bernie Sanders -- Ylevental ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Besides the fact they both deal with media coverage of Sanders and the current discussion is to rename the article to a neutral topic of media coverage. That the bias article contains information regarding in favor of Sanders and would best be there. Thus it duplicates material found in the "bias" article including section for section recreations such as Later campaign months, Harvard study, Identity crisis, and was entirely created to cause issues due to being unhappy that the bias article was not deleted. Yeah, this is a duplicate article. Your own comments at
Talk:Media bias against Bernie Sanders#Created a new article to show how ridiculous this controversy is shows this.--
Will
C
20:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Another issue with this article is it is a direct violation of
WP:POVFORK.--
Will
C
20:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I guess, but is media coverage of Bernie Sanders in general that notable for an entire article? Unless there is some proven major conspiracy that shows that Bernie receives too much positive or negative bias, it's not really notable at all.
Ylevental (
talk)
20:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Notability has been covered. That is no longer a topic of debate. There are enough sources to discuss issues that WP:GNG has been established. This is a content forking based on personal bias and should either be deleted or merged.-- Will C 21:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
-
Ylevental can you point me towards the many sources you've added? In my looking at a
comparison I'm seeing one (maybe two) new sources and no actual new examples. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I thought I added more, but miscounted. However, most of the media coverage of Sanders clearly isn't negative (unless it's justified as such)
Ylevental (
talk)
21:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Based on content alone it did, in my judgement as a sysop, qualify for speedy deletion. However because the page this was taken from is a
redirect target I have just redirected. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ Barkeep49: That is fine with me. That was my original attempt but it was reverted. Instead of a full discussion, I just went with the speedy to speedy this up.-- Will C 22:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Based on content alone it did, in my judgement as a sysop, qualify for speedy deletion. However because the page this was taken from is a
redirect target I have just redirected. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I thought I added more, but miscounted. However, most of the media coverage of Sanders clearly isn't negative (unless it's justified as such)
Ylevental (
talk)
21:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I guess, but is media coverage of Bernie Sanders in general that notable for an entire article? Unless there is some proven major conspiracy that shows that Bernie receives too much positive or negative bias, it's not really notable at all.
Ylevental (
talk)
20:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Another issue with this article is it is a direct violation of
WP:POVFORK.--
Will
C
20:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)