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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pikeville protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

We are not the news: this was just another demonstration, and not all demonstrations are notable, with or without a ban on hoods. Even if there is a suggestion of the GNG being met because of some coverage right now, there is no indication whatsoever that this is in any way of lasting value. If this is allowed to stand, we have license for every single event that gets a bit of coverage to get its own article. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a clear wp:NOTNEWS. I'm sure there may be some list of or article about such events in which this may merit a mention.TheLongTone (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Pikeville, Kentucky. ^Falling_Gravity 22:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Drmies. WP:NOTNEWS, and the current lead misleadingly states "a series of rallies and counterprotests" when there was only a single rally of no proven lasting value to merit a standalone article. Funcrunch (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In many cases it is obvious that a recent event will have long-term notability. Although this event did receive considerable coverage, there is nothing in the coverage to indicate long-term notability. It is just news. Because it is just news, I also don't think it is a good idea to merge it into the Pikeville, Kentucky article. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; I would suggest openness on the question of merging into the town's article if it turns out that it had a lasting impact on the town (legislatively, perhaps). Not that it's relevant here, but at no point in the article does it actually give the date of the thing. D'oh. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As others have said, NOTNEWS. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think this article could be included as a section to a larger subject, such as the Pikeville, Kentucky article. This single event is not notable enough to keep this article as it stands. 173.90.239.8 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2017 (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.