Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Transit Bus fight


 * 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 No consensus. The signal-to-noise ratio in this discussion is pretty bad, there are numerous keep comments that are not based on Wikipedia policy in any way, and several that don't even seem remotely relevant to this conversation. Nevertheless, there are also perfectly valid arguments made to keep, and to delete, meaning the outcome today is no consensus. Perhaps this should be revisited in a few months when this issue has cooled down somewhat and it will be easier to retrospectively determine what lasting notability this incident/fight/meme/whatever may have. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

AC Transit Bus fight

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. This is actually closer to a speedy delete (CSD A7) but some joker would just remove the tag.

While this is a WP:BLP article, it doesn't even rise up to BLP1E as there is no single event which has ever made this one person (or people) notable. Furthermore, it is highly questionable, even by the "sources" being cited as to whether the older gentleman involved in the Oakland Athletics tasing incident and the sensationalized AC Transit dispute are actually one in the same, as no reliable third party source has ever reported on this in any definitive manner.

So what we're left with is a lethal combo of original research generated by excited 4chan fanboys and tabloid-style BLPzeroE subject matter. JBsupreme ( talk ) 16:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The fight seems to be a notable event as it has widespread coverage in reliable sources. Maybe the article should be renamed and mention of Thomas Bruso removed. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Negative. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid news source or platform for creating and perpetuating said material.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From reading WP:EVENT we are already seeing global scope and depth to coverage. I say it's too early too call a delete on this event. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankfully the only person you're kidding is yourself.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 17:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to event-oriented name to remove BLP issues, and remove mention of Thomas Bruso unless reliable sources are found confirming he is the individual involved in the event. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I moved the article to remove all BLP issues, this is now all about WP:EVENT, too early to call a delete on this event, see my comment above.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. The event doesn't seem to pass WP:EVENT and the person involved certainly doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Beating of a man on a bus and getting tasered and arrested as a result is WP:BLP1E at best. If there is any encyclopedic value in this one, I just don't see it. — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some corrections. He was tasered and arrested when he refused to leave the Oakland stadium in 2009. Then he beat up a man on the bus a year later. It's not notability. It's called recidivism. — Rankiri (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Very much delete as being utterly unencyclopedic and BLP problematic all in one giant ball of fail. WP:NOTNEWS works, as does WP:BLP1E; whatever you choose, this article needs to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pontificalibus' assertion that this story has the necessary scope and depth of coverage ignores a key factor, that the coverage be over time. This may be notable in a year, but it isn't now.  For it to be notable then, the example at WP:BLP1E of Reagan's attempted assassin would be a perfectly cromulent test.--otherlleft 18:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as just not notable to anybody not on the bus. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Following your logic, was the Virginia Tech massacre only notable to people in Virginia Tech at the time? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My logic was that outside of the USA the Virginia Tech massacre was on mainstream news outlets which gives an indication of worldwide notability, this incident appears (to us foreigners) to be just a local news story with no real importance outside of the local area, hence the delete comment. MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The fight itself is not as relevant as the massive online reaction, creation of a meme, and propagation at a stunning pace over less than 24 hours. If this article is deleted, the info should be moved to an entry on memes, or to a list of memes which should be documented as a timeline.  Perhaps splitting it up by year eg and entry that is "Internet Memes of 2010" for instance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.240.137 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This internet meme was all over the web and has been covered by several news outlets besides just blogs. The site Deadspin.com has also covered it and they may not be a mainstream news outlet, but have a large readership. Also, this entry is no different than the Jacksonville Ninja. MaxMercy (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - We judge each article by its own merits, and will discuss Jacksonville Ninja if it is nominated here. --otherlleft 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Edrigu (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper, and this is a notable event that I was interested in finding out more about. Fortunately, wikipedia was around to provide this information.  Baiter (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. We all know that Wikipedia is not paper, that also means it is not a WP:NEWSpaper as well. ;-)  RFerreira (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not news. Woogee (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Contrary to the nomination, the Oakland Tribune reports that Bruso was indeed the same man that was previously tasered. Also, Google yields 175,000 results for "epic beard man". —  C M B J   09:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is a classic example of bad reporting. If you read closely, you'll see other highly unlikely remarks, such as "Thomas Bruso [...] who calls himself "Tom Slick," "Vietnam Tom" and "Epic Beard Man.""  Really?  He refers to himself as Epic Beard Man?  When did that happen?  It is obvious that Angela Woodall of the Oakland Tribune is just skimming blogs and reporting things as if they were fact.  That's... frightening.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 10:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our article on The Oakland Tribune, the newspaper is 126 years old—and this article was filed in a standard (non-editorial) manner. But perhaps you're right. In case anyone is interested in verifying the integrity of her sources, the article says to "Contact Angela Woodall at 510-208-6413". —  C M B J   10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems to fit quite nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_memes --Bahati (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, merits only a mention on a list entry such as List_of_Internet_phenomena. Hairhorn (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - For now at least. Made San Jose Mercury News and the Christian Science Monitor also, and is ongoing CE. There is no BLP anymore. Corella (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and this is a notable internet meme. Thue | talk 14:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't read this bus article, but for some ideas you can probably compare it to The Bus Uncle. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC) voted below r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable; "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" Linnea94 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, just read the article and some of the sources and I think this is borderline notable at best. It does have coverage in some sources (CSM being the biggest of these, I think), but not much beyond typical news coverage, and I don't see a huge outbreak of significant commentary in reliable sources, just reporting on what happened. The closest it comes to being notable is its being part of a larger phenomenon (see the CSM article), but even that is not developed very much. I don't think there's sufficient coverage here to make this more than a news event&mdash;it's not like The Bus Uncle, which I linked above. Also, for what it's worth, the article in its current state is extremely poorly written and nearly incomprehensible; I had to go watch the video to get any idea what it was about. If this is kept, it is sorely in need of a complete rewrite by a competent editor. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Merits a mention as an internet meme at List_of_Internet_phenomena. Eusebeus (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia (due to personal reasons), however, after seeing the video from my friends and reading news articles, I thought it fit the criteria for notability, and that there was enough to make a Wikipedia article, so I came back to make the article, but seeing it had already been done,but was in AFD, I shall voice my opinion for it to be kept, and if it is kept, I shall improve it according to sources that become available. Acebulf (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide the reason you believe it is notable, or are you only here to tell a story about how you got here? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it wasn't clear, I meant to say that it reached a significant amount of news coverage both on the actual event but also on the meme that ensued.Acebulf (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The event doesn't seem to be anything outside of a news story. If the event gains notability outside of the press (meme notwithstanding), then it might be worthy to keep. --Ted87 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with AC Transit. Not major enough to merit own article. 76.202.76.41 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) — 76.202.76.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep It's notable enough. I don't get it, Wikipedia is full with articles on gay stupid memes. 79.118.181.216 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) — 79.118.181.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This incident is becoming more notable every day. If it dies off in a month, then someone can nominate for deletion.  As it is, it would be strange to delete this article when the incident in question is gaining so much attention in the popular media. --Xaliqen (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please recall WP:CRYSTAL. Someone can recreate the article if it doesn't die off in a month, not the other way around. — Rankiri (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your point. I'm not making any predictions about whether the subject will be notable in a month.  I'm merely stating that it's notable now and, therefore, should be included.  The salient point of my argument is precisely based on the subject's current notability. --Xaliqen (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NOT and WP:EVENT, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and an event is only presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. The subject's current notability doesn't seem to satisfy these guidelines. — Rankiri (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we disagree on the coverage aspect. Christian Science Monitor, ABC News, CBS, SJ Mercury, SF Chronicle covered it so far.  --Xaliqen (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, this event has received much more coverage in the past few days. "'Racially-charged' fight on U.S. bus becomes YouTube hit". A historic occasion like this will make future generations proud. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it the purpose of Wikipedia to ensure the pride of future generations? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but it's the purpose of the news media to be a bit more selective in their coverage choices. — Rankiri (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I say keep it in Wikipedia - Michael follows Bruso to the front of the bus. That is what goes on in Public Tranportation. I saw it happen in Cleveland, Detroit , New York and Alabama .. The young blacks are just looking for a fight..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.229.166 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)  — 24.121.229.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep It's very informative on the even that happened just recently and should be placed in the wikipedia, as one of the fastest growing memes in first 24h. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.169.154 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This video is also an excellent example of why mass transportation will never be an acceptable replacement for personal transportation; without picking sides, who wants to be exposed to all the blood and spit flying between those two people? Not I! The answer isn't buses and trains, it's smaller, more efficient vehicles. Zaphraud (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how little that has to do with anything. Will someone slap a WP:SOAPBOX template on this AfD, please? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The video has spawned many commentary videos, musical and animated parodies, and printed media discussions. It is not only a record of a political moment captured on video, similar to Dont tase me bro, but, like the hamster dance, it is also a viral video meme which has given rise to numerous meme-ish responses. Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The video is one of the largest memes as of recently, and the attention of the video is ridiculously large. It'll definitely be something that people will always think of, because it's a notable event. Cyanidethistles (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This incident is becoming more notable every day. If it dies off in a month, then someone can nominate for deletion.  As it is, it would be strange to delete this article when the incident in question is gaining so much attention in the popular media.  Thanks,   DotComCairney  16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another internet meme that no one is going to care about in a month. The article is mainly about the incident, which is truly not noteworthy, and not about the reaction. Is a fight on a but notable? HardlyTicklemygrits (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - What's the rush to delete events as they're still shaping up in the media? There's multiple reliable sources concerning this incident.  It could end up like featured article - The Bus Uncle, or we may all forget it next month.  If that's the case, then revisit it next month. - hahnch e n 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, Bus Uncle is featured. Contrary to the comments going on here about the low quality and relevance, the message seems to be that, in fact, two guys fighting on a bus is among the best content Wikipedia has to offer. In my mind, that certainly invalidates the seeming undercurrent of prejudice favoring deletion on the grounds that the topic is too "low brow" &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Catherineyronwode and Xaliqen --IU2002 (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as many articles on memes exist on Wikipedia, it seems hypocritical to just sweep this one under the rug. now I understand that not all esoteric memes should be chronicled here, but those that merit such media attention have such a right. The only particular controversy that I see is the choosing of sides and likeliness of vandalism, which could possibly merit article protection for the moment. Assuming the article can be tailored to be neutral, either by just reporting on the event (lacking discussion of opinions) or presenting equally the opposing sides of the discussion, the article does deserve to exist. Also it seems that the primary reasons for deletion seem to be that the event is not news and that it will dissappear from peoples' memories in a short time. I find that this argument is mostly opinion and seems to be lacking valid evidence to support itself, as the event has resounded through mainstream and non-mainstream media. ChaosData (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The news coverage seems to be very much local in nature. I can't see US national news organisations covering it on google news, let alone international news mediaTicklemygrits (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't just rely on Google News searches to establish notability. "Epic Beard Man" has 466,000 results on Google's main search. Are we contending that none of those sources are reliable? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it isn't verifiable, I'm saying a fight on a bus isn't notable and it hasn't had enough mainstream coverage to make that trivial event notable.Ticklemygrits (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AOL, CSM, CBS are not local news. As for international media it's been on both British and Swedish. Linnea94 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep For now. Scope, depth, and diversity of sources are clearly established. It has a reasonable possibility to in the future satisfy the "lasting effects" criteria. It only needs to satisfy the first combination of factors (scope, depth, diversity), or the second one alone (lasting effects). The fact that it has not yet satisfied the latter, therefore, is not sufficient to condemn it to deletion &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 14:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Combine with Bumfights. Bum Fights may have started as a video series but it seems to have become a genre or meme.  So I say make Bum fights a genre (of voyerism?) not just a video series and stick all notable incidents, like Mr Bruso's, and commercial projects together in one article. FWIW I see on the net that people have been commenting about Mr Bruso's behavior on public transportation since before the incident, so he may actually be a known personality in Oakland and cities near Oakland that are served by Amtrak. Geo8rge (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think most people are judging the article based only on the incident itself, its trivial at best however its an internet meme now. On par with Leeroy jenkims, Dont tase me bro and many others, if the article is removed then most articles  on the internet phenomena should be considered for deletion(most already have, multiple times but survived). its part of pop culture now, quasi-relevant - maybe but still has some mainstream appeal. At the end of the day its just a single article with cited sources, I think it can be left alone, its not going to tarnish Wikipedia all by itself. --Theo10011 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but Relocate I don't know to where, but AC Transit only happened to be the urban transit system on which it happened. The incident is, a multi-layered illustration of how a racially-based micro-phenomena plays out in today's instant communication environment, with a macroscopic application of the Heisenberg principle of how the original observer may or may not have affected what is now secondarily observed. Howardskid (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This incident appears to be attracting more attention, and its coverage probably hasn't crested yet. In a few weeks its notability may be clearer, but for the time being a delete seem premature. Blowfish (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable internet meme with extensive news coverage from radio shows, newspapers, TV, and online media. --Nick Douglas (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:EVENT with ease. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered by the Huffington Post, Deadspin, numerous Internet "newspapers" like Examiner.com; it may not have fit the criteria for notability before, but it certainly does now. I've seen discussion of the subject pretty much everywhere at my numerous Internet haunts. 71.203.159.37 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a writer for Examiner I can assure you that is not a reliable source. The content is not fact-checked or verified in any way, before or after publication.  I also am not sure if Huffington Post should be considered reliable, because I do not know if they exercise editorial oversight prior to publication, or just publish instantly like other blogging sites, but that's really a question for another page.--~TPW  (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep --Will Decay (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Internet Phenomenons are valid entries; Numa Numa for one has an entry. These types of entries represent valid and very new cultural events for our time period. Whether it lasts or not is for future historians and wikipedians to make a career out of cataloging. Anyone who is connected to the net saw this video. Almost everyone in the Bay Area, connected or not, has heard about this. So this is a regionally significant event at the very least. In addition, and I think most important, are the issues involved. This video displays real life Oakland with all the social, political, economic, and racial overtones that anyone who lives in the area is in continuous dialog. The entry and the discussions on the entry will make for good wikipedia.Phail Saph (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While I wouldn't consider the event depicted in the meme notable, the ensuing coverage means the article has the sources and coverage to merit a Wiki article. Australian Matt (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point this out, It's already being called one of the fastest growing internet memes, here and .--Theo10011 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage, national notability. Perhaps it's not good notability, but it's certainly there. Dayewalker (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has recieved significant coverage by reliable sources. Maybe no-one will care in a month; but notability is not temporary, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  17:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is pathetic how some wiki admins want anything off that hasn't been recorded on meet the press. It is reliable and significant.  This is just as pathetic as how some admin got Raywilliamjohnson deleted even though his youtube channel has had over 100,000,000 hits173.54.200.196 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why should this be deleted? It is an epic chapter in internet history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.103.125 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is history, it's epic, it has a purpose, keep it for fuck sake!
 * Keep it's a legit meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.223.66 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep - this seems notable enough, if stupid. the article needs work, it has some kinda odd structure and sentences.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2010 (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.