Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Washtenaw County Democratic Primary

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Washtenaw County Democratic Primary[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable election. Fbdave (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The election almost surely won't rise to our standards anyway, but at the moment there's no content and no implication that there will ever be anything of lasting interest. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uhh this article doesn't even say what position the Democratic primary is nominating a candidate for...definitely not noable regardless, we don't generally have articles for local positions, much less for their individual elections, much less for one party's primary. Reywas92^Talk 21:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County-level ~~(presidential?)~~ primaries don't make the grade; heck the election for a minor office wouldn't either. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salting - this is a coatrack about a local election that is hiding a BLP violation in plain sight. 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. County-level primaries for county prosecutor elections are not "inherently" notable elections for the purposes of an international encyclopedia, and there's no reliable sourcing here to get this one over WP:GNG as a special case. If anybody reads the comment above mine and gets confused by it, I've already yanked the BLP violation — let's just say it involved primary sourcing a criminal claim directly to the sex offender registry, without actually showing any evidence whatsoever that the sex offender is even the same person as the county prosecutor candidate the claim was being attached to, and leave it at that. I can virtually guarantee that trying to coatrack that allegation was the entire idea behind this article existing in the first place, which is precisely why this article should not exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.