Deletion of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (4th nomination)

Comment: I firmly reject the premise of the nomination.  This is a notable subject.  That said, in the previous AfD, I advocated for the removal of this version of the article because it was politically hijacked by  people to turn it into the dismissive article it currently is.  If you read the article, only one side is being presented.  It is so non-sensical to repeatedly say "there is nothing to see here folks" when the details and depth of the allegations they are defending against are not presented.  You "doth protest too much, methinks"  We should have a proper article about the '''Bernie Blackout'''.  I always advocate for retention of valid content, however I do not like wikipedia hosting incorrect information.  This version of the article removed a large amount of content that previously told the story.  It is now incomplete, distorted and thus incorrect information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:AGENDA)

Comment: or '''Merge''' with Bernie Sanders, and/or Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign|2016 campaign, and/or Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign|2020 campaign. While the nominator's rationale is vague and a bit difficult to parse, this monstrosity has been a blatant   from the very beginning. The entire concept of the article is laughable, and the topic has received '''no''' sustaining coverage since Sanders lost the primary. I think the article would've been deleted ages ago if it weren't for the IP and SPA activity in prior discussions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: or '''merge''' with Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election or a similar article. Per : ''Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject''. US presidential elections get enormous, saturation-volume media coverage and even minor details would be sufficient to pass the |GNG, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on them. Taking a longer view I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to be nearly significant enough to justify this kind of treatment. While he's an influential figure now, he's also a US Senator known for unsuccessfully seeking the Democratic presidential nomination twice, and I don't think he will be widely remembered, say, fifty years from now. Imagine how people would feel about an article on, say, Media coverage of George McGovern. I also think it's significant that this article consists almost entirely of statements some person or group has made about media coverage of Bernie Sanders, referenced to the place where those statements were made. The coverage apparently doesn't allow building a narrative, as opposed to a series of isolated quotes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and , the same reasons I gave when nominating this article for deletion in January: Bernie Sanders is ''still'' the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is the only person in the world for whom this is the case. This article was started as a  asserting that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is ''still'' a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable fact. Some of this content could be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed to the point where I have stopped editing the page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:VERIFIABILITY||WP:POVFORK)