Deletion of Media bias against Bernie Sanders

Comment: or '''Merge'''- Bernie Sanders is one of the most well known canaduates of the democratic primaries, and any bias can be laughed off considering that negative articles get posted about every single candidate. Anything that gets posted about Sanders gets 10X the signal boost on social media compared to Biden or Butti or literally anybody else. There have been positive pieces written about Bernie Sanders EVERY SINGLE DAY. Either make the tone of the article abide to  or delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: There is an established history for this topic – spanning from 2015, meeting descriptions in pre-existing literature (Chomsky, Konst, etc.) and conforming to rudimentary logic (US media is for-profit and owned by conglomerates that stand to lose substantial profit if a left-wing candidate like Sanders is elected). The same is happening to leftist Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, where half of the top newspapers are owned by 2 billionaires, and their coverage is adversarial towards him. For conglomerate-owned media to cover Sanders fairly would be financially unwise for them – and their entire business model is based on profit (rather than e.g. state media, like the BBC). Media bias against candidates like Sanders is more than maybe / maybe-not speculation – it is to be expected. With Sanders likely being the most prominent leftist in the US – and the US's place in the world – this, if anything, meets the  criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This deletion discussion is probably being |meat puppeted like crazy. https://www.reddit.com/r/bernieblindness/comments/e53afl/someone_put_together_one_hell_of_a_wikipedia/ A subreddit's moderator linked directly to the discussion (effectively encouraging others to participate), and https://twitter.com/dkmich/status/1201508565321732096 it was brought up on Twitter
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:MEAT)

Comment: or '''merge''' with the appropriate sections of his 2016 and 2020 campaign articles per comments above, as there is some reliably sourced and notable material here. Leaning more towards '''weak keep''' per JamesMLane's comments at 06:06, 2 December 2019. If article survives, I would support moving to '''Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders''' per  and CompactSpacez's comments at 06:35, 3 December 2019
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: May need some work with NPOV, but it is clearly notable. Most of the issues mentioned by those in favor of deletion are , and thus not a valid reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: So I'm avowed Sanderista, but I'm a bit gob smacked at the existence of this page. I could list a lot of the ,  and  issues with this page, but I think the best rationale for deletion is a simple  arguement (or in this case, other stuff doesn't exist). How many other ''Media bias against X'' pages are there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SOAPBOX||WP:ESSAY||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: as per arguments above, in particular issues with 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders or similar - The coverage of Bernie Sanders, and the criticism and analysis of it, is a clearly notable and verifiable phenomenon. The name definitely needs to change per  and more balance should be added to this article. It seems like a lot of the arguments in favor of deleting this are either  with regards to NPOV, or . If the media coverage of other candidates is a notable enough topic that it justifies a separate article, there's nothing stopping anyone from creating those
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POVNAMING||WP:SURMOUNTABLE||WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)

Comment: The complaint fails to explain in what way this article fails to meet |notability criteria, as a cursory read finds much evidence for a notable article on a newsworthy discussion, whether the claims presented are factual or not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Wow. I don't envy the closer on this one. Let me make it a little harder. (1) I view this as a |summary style split from Bernie Sanders#Polls_and_news_coverage: It's an expansion (based in reliable, secondary sources) of what would be |undue weight to squeeze into the existing section. (2) Changing the article title to something more agreeably neutral is table stakes: just |request a move. (3) However you want to title it, the topic itself (the observed phenomenon of comparatively less media coverage for Sanders) has |significant coverage. Here's a sample of the sourcing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY||WP:UNDUE||WP:RM||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per CompactSpacez - this article has issues and needs cleanup to comply with NPOV. I'm not against ing various sections of the article that can't be salvaged, but that's not a reason for deletion. There's still a handful of good secondary sources cited from outlets like the Washington Post that could be used to write a decent article about a much-reported criticism by Sanders and those who support him, and it would be due to have a well-sourced article that carefully explains the relevant perspectives without using Wikipedia's voice to state anyone's point of view as a matter of fact. #REASON details fourteen valid reasons to pursue deletion, and needing work is not one of them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:DEL)

Comment: Well the article is related to upcoming US Presidential candidate and it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: whatever the closing admin decides, I want to register my protest at |the worst canvassing I've seen here at AfD since April 2010
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)