Deletion of Bernie Bro

Comment: I surmise that some of the ''delete'' iVotes were prompted by the sourcing in the article which, when I came to it, was sourced heavily to blogs and non-mainstream news outlets.  My rewrite depends on major, mainstream sources like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic and USA Today.  Really, I think with coverage that is ongoing, and in-depth since October, this topic sails past .  The larger challenge was not too few sources in searches, but, rather, sifting through the myriad hits on  this topic in reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:GNG pass; The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources over a period of time, and |notability is not temporary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: given mostly reasons from Drmies with , This will not last until Third time call for deletion. Simply because Mainstream News pundits (who probably only attacking last Democratic Candidate in this 2016 election race) keep using term or use more recently as Propaganda againist Sanders supporters, Put regardless most of americans will less likely buying on term or its meaning since only 6% of americans have care about it while 52% others will believe some sources as serious, Seen from this findinghttps://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-news/single-page/ (except Hillary supporters until Democratic Convention). Special:Contributions/98.27.17.168|98.27.17.168
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per AusLondoner. Mostly  coverage with no indication of long-time notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016.  Recall .  Easily passes  with the sources currently listed, even lots of us (including myself) think it's dumb.  ''' ''Deus vult
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:GNG)

Comment: Siding with the above calls of , I'd say that undue weight is lent to the term, as most of the sources are very tabloid-esque opinion pieces/editorials in news outlets and blogs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: It's a  with relevance only to the 2016 election.  It has no lasting notability and is .  Reference can be made to the language used in the discussion of the 2016 election
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NEOLOGISM is the right call. Also seems to lack lasting notability so delete per . &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: and also add as a short section to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016   Serious journalism on Bernie bros exists https://newrepublic.com/minutes/128747/sanders-campaign-knows-bernie-bros-problem, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/24/these-6-charts-show-how-much-sexism-hillary-clinton-faces-on-twitter/ as does extensive coverage in a light vein in serious places http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/here-comes-the-berniebro-bernie-sanders/411070/, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/here-comes-the-berniebro-bernie-sanders/411070/.  It goes back at leas to October 2015 - very early in the campaign season.  And it continues  http://www.kgw.com/news/nation-now/hillary-clinton-no-fan-of-bernie-bros-could-use-their-energy-vs-trump/187584737.  Mu news google search https://www.google.com/#q=%22Bernie+bro%22 turned up 79,300 hits (of which I looked through the first page, and the first entries in a "sort by date" search).  The sourcing exists to pass .  Article needs improvement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''Merge'''; despite the page needing work to make this clear, there are now sources that describe the use of the term, which should defuse the  objections. Special:Contributions/75.88.47.95|75.88.47.95
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)