2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses: Can be sufficiently covered with one sentence at 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus .  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties.  GoodDay ( talk ) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG ?  I can't find anything more than passing mentions.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties.  GoodDay ( talk ) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What policy or guideline is that supported by?  AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics ,  and Alaska .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary.  Longestview ( talk ) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make.  DukeOfDelTaco ( talk ) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable election.  There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting.  There is coverage of this from the LA Times , ABC News , PBS , Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska.  Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article.  Finding this took less than a minute.  I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy.  The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened.  This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward.  The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions.  -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage.  Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results.  This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source.  It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written.  So what if they are routine coverage?  By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results.  If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held.  Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above.  There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources.  When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do.  Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes.  I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article.  -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage.  What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage.  Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile.  Lets try to keep this disagreement civil.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination.  You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination.  You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability.  This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do.  First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion.  Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source.  You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page.  As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives : "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects."  All the links I found was through a quick Google search.  And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable.  Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is.  All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided.  Not remove the article.  -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything.  Memevietnam98 ( talk ) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition.  Yoblyblob ( Talk ) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign.  Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign.  Daniel ( talk ) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew.  It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus , similar to what we have done to other primaries this election where no other candidates appeared on the ballot.    ~ Politicdude ( About me , talk , contribs ) 00:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus per Esolo5002, Longestview, DukeOfDelTaco, Politicdude, and WP:NOPAGE .  Coverage is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska : The standalone is not necessary and is not notable.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -  Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate.  Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States.  An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated.   It's Wikipedia's written record.  Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates.   Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect.  Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden.   It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable election and other reasons above.  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus .  There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event.  It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested.  We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page.  Reywas92 Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it.  Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it.  Geotubemedia ( talk ) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties".  None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense.  Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above.  It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election .  This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are.  Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden.  At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden.  76.6.209.95 ( talk ) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources.  How is it not notable?  The result was covered by news outlets around the country.  The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense.  For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot?  That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion.  This should obviously be kept.  — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 ( talk ) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29 , was originally closed as a BADNAC.  I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved by counting votes.  This is a discussion, and consensus can be found even when participation is roughly equal, if one side's arguments is stronger.  However, this needs to be contextualized and rationalized in a closing statement by an administrator.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge Per WP:MERGEREASON , merging doesn't necessarily mean that this caucus isn't notable, just that there isn't enough to say about it to justify its own article.  This caucus was essentially a non-event, and the "article" is mostly infoboxes, sidebars, and other template cruft.  -- Ahecht ( TALK PAGE ) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If the tables were turned, and it was the other party's nominee who had this caucus result of being the only candidate and not garnering many votes, how would people be reacting?  I assume good faith here, but let's be consistent with the candidates.  — Maile ( talk ) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We've merged from the other party as well, not all of us care about American politics in a partisan manner.  SportingFlyer T · C 03:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/merge We've been redirecting elections such as these which aren't quite notable enough for their own article - while there's obviously some coverage, there's not much to say and they basically violate WP:NOTNEWS and our event guidelines while being able to be covered adequately elsewhere on the site.  SportingFlyer T · C 03:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/merge Adds no value to WP as a teeny stub.  A trivial uncontested primary of this type can be easily covered in one sentence in the main article.  Feels like people create these non-articles purely to check off the redlinks in Template:2024 Republican primaries , but many of those links just need to be a redirect to "<Year> United States presidential election in <state>#Republican caucuses" .  2024 Nebraska Republican presidential primary falls into the same category.  I'd go as far as to say that being a section in the main <election in state> article should be the default , with caucuses only getting a standalone article when there's some major controversy or it was a bigger/more heavily contested primary.  Even minorly contested primaries like 2024 Washington Republican presidential primary (Trump vs. Haley) are really just a results box that could be as easily slotted into the main article and fall under WP:REDUNDANT .  Hemmers ( talk ) 15:53, 7 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect