- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 12:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Bernie or Bust
- Bernie or Bust ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article should be deleted per similar logic behind this AfD for Never Trump. Online searches return thousands of results, but per WP:NEO, these seem to be generally sources using the term and not sources about the term. Appears overall to be a hashtag, general sentiment, (at times even a bit of a slur) but not really an organization of any type, nor even a loosely organized movement with any semblance of hierarchy or structure. Can throw in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM for good measure.
Currently the article is mostly a WP:COAT rack for talking about voter dissatisfaction, which may well be perfectly WP:DUE weight in an article about the candidate or the election, but remove the coats and the article is essentially a dictionary entry. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. There is possibly another good target I'm not thinking of. There are sources about this hashtag and these objections, but I don't see them covered sufficiently outside of the campaign in general, so per WP:NOPAGE, merge/redirect. @ Timothyjosephwood: Regarding the comparison the the Never Trump AfD, it seems worth mentioning that the article looks to have been recreated as Stop Trump movement the day after that AfD was closed... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is plainly a notable topic, passing GNG with numerous sources. (Just a few examples: [1] [2] [3].) It has been covered for months. The deletion of Never Trump was grossly erroneous, and should not be used as a precedent here. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This article has four paragraphs and only one of the paragraphs talks about voter distrust, while the other paragraphs talk about polls showing that the majority of Sanders supporters would support Clinton, Bernie Sanders endorsing Clinton, or arguments against the Bernie or Bust movement. For that reason, I think it is un-insightful to call this article a WP:COAT article. Even if the article only discussed voter distrust, it would not be a WP:COAT article because it discusses the cause of the movement rather than spread a propaganda about it as a WP:COAT article would. One of the biggest reasons people come to Wikipedia is to learn the origin of a particular concept, so we shouldn't delete an article for doing its job (unless there's no sources or the topic is not notable, however this is not the case). The article is balanced because, as I mentioned before, this article has four paragraphs and only one of the paragraphs talks about voter distrust, while the other paragraphs talk about polls showing that the majority of Sanders supporters would support Clinton, Bernie Sanders endorsing Clinton, or arguments against the Bernie or Bust movement. -- Proud User ( talk) 22:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) Strong merge and redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 for the same reason as the "Never Trump" movement. It's too early to determine whether this will have lasting significance and comply with WP:NOTNEWS. Graham ( talk) 22:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also per
Grayfell, who I think put it rather succinctly:
Given the level of significance that we can ascribe to this phenomenon (or movement, or however it is best described at this stage) without having a crystal ball, the appropriate depth of coverage can fit comfortably in the campaign article. And if this phenomenon comes to have the level of significance that some expect, the decision not to have a separate article can of course be reassessed at that time. Graham ( talk) 22:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Election coverage needs to be weighed carefully, as so much of it turns out to be disposable. This specific phrase may turn out to have lasting significance but it's too early to tell.
- Merge and redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 - there is no reason that this can't be covered, in context, in a paragraph or two on that page. Neutrality talk 21:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there are a couple reasons. One is that that article is already very large, and there is no room to merge this one into it. Another is that the subjects are different - "Bernie or Bust" is not part of the campaign, and is a continuing phenomenon, while the campaign is over. Also,
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here, as this is a months-old topic which continues to get coverage, so I can't see any rationale for deleting. --
Sammy1339 (
talk) 22:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- That article is not so large that it couldn't be merged. And while the phenomenon is not part of the campaign, it is an outgrowth of it. Neutrality talk 23:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there are a couple reasons. One is that that article is already very large, and there is no room to merge this one into it. Another is that the subjects are different - "Bernie or Bust" is not part of the campaign, and is a continuing phenomenon, while the campaign is over. Also,
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here, as this is a months-old topic which continues to get coverage, so I can't see any rationale for deleting. --
Sammy1339 (
talk) 22:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect per above. There are some sources, a few of which are good, but this is just one relatively minor aspect of his campaign and the election. Election coverage needs to be weighed carefully, as so much of it turns out to be disposable. This specific phrase may turn out to have lasting significance but it's too early to tell. Grayfell ( talk) 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge & redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 per Grayfell and WP:NOTNEWS. While the subject is well-sourced and relevant enough to the Sanders campaign to warrant coverage, it is simply WP:TOOSOON to determine whether or not it is notable in its own right.-- JayJasper ( talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The Daily Banter February 22nd, AlterNet April 11th, Los Angeles Times April 24th, U.S. News and World Report May 3rd, The Atlantic May 5th, New York Magazine July 28th. These are a few sources among literally hundreds. The range of dates should dispel arguments of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:TOOSOON. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge & redirect We don't need separate articles for every briefly popular hashtag that pops in the 2016 election cycle. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The Never Trump article was partly deleted for being a mere two-liner that can be easily discussed within other contexts, and for being an insider campaign that failed to rally a real movement. I don't necessarily agree, but this article here is considerably longer, adequately sourced and indeed a widely discussed popular movement that is distinct from the Sanders campaign, and may still play a decisive role in the election. -- PanchoS ( talk) 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- The "may still" sounds a lot like "may one day be notable".
TimothyJosephWood 00:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's no way that argument can be reconciled with
WP:CRYSTAL. While they "may still play a decisive role in the election", that's no different than saying that they're the
up and coming next big thing.
Graham (
talk) 02:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are working very hard to establish a false equivalency between "may still become notable" and "may still be the deciding factor in a presidential election". How do you reconcile the idea that it is not notable yet with the large amount of coverage it has received over the past five months? -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 02:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's no way that argument can be reconciled with
WP:CRYSTAL. While they "may still play a decisive role in the election", that's no different than saying that they're the
up and coming next big thing.
Graham (
talk) 02:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- The "may still" sounds a lot like "may one day be notable".
TimothyJosephWood 00:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016, with some content merged if anything warrants it. If the current page actually talked about the phrase's cultural impact in more compelling detail, I might vote keep. As is, however, all the page's content seems to be talking about Sanders supporters as a general concept/timeline of events. As this group of people isn't defined by their catchphrase, but by their political allegiance, I feel all the current content would be more appropriate under a "support movements for Bernie Sanders" section or something along those lines, with Bernie or Bust mentioned briefly in that context. Yvarta ( talk) 09:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.