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 keep. There seems to be strong arguments that this meets WP:EVENT, with specific evidence provided for many of the predicates of that criteria. The article title issues raised are signficant, and this closure in no way precludes continuing discussion of the title at the article talk page. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexian Lien beating

[edit]

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

A road rage incident, one of millions every year, with no lasting impact, reported widely at the time but no clear demonstration of notability, this is, after all, not a newspaper. Could/should be redirected to Gloria Allred for a minor mention. (cf. New Jersey Turnpike smog accident which redirects to New Jersey Turnpike, this accident involved 66 vehicles, cause 9 deaths and 39 injuries, but is covered in a couple of sentences). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into ~~Draft:Motorcycle hooliganism~~ Motorcycle hooliganism per WP:VICTIM, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." I've had this article on the back burner for a while, collecting sources on the alternate motorcycling anti-social culture to outlaw motorcycle clubs. Recently Brianhe (talk · contribs) has been helping to get the article ready. After the Alexian Lien incident, several major media wrote profiles of the new(ish) hooligan biker subculture. Anyone who thinks the article is ready can move it to the main space, or make some adjustments to get it ready. The fact that Lien is a crime victim who didn't seek notoriety suggests that he should not have an article with his name in the title, per WP:BLP1E. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Motorcycle hooliganism is now live and merging into it solves the objections several editors raise below. By placing the event in the context of the ongoing pattern of similar incidents over a period of time, the description of the Hollywwood Stuntz/Alex Lien incident becomes more encyclopedic, and avoids several BLP issues. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The movie "Mad Max" essentially unfolded in real life on the streets of NYC — about the closest thing we Americans have to an authoritarian police state. A man beaten bloody, stomped as he lay helpless on the ground, in front of his horrified wife and infant daughter, who were themselves nearly beaten. A man nearly committing vehicular homicide in self-defense. An innocent bystander risking his life to save the husband, wife, and daughter from further attack. Undercover cops part of the gang, along for the ride, apparently participating in the assault. The whole thing captured on terrifying video taken by one of the riders.

"Reported widely at the time" is quite the understatement, and I've got to say, I wonder whether the editor comparing this to a fog-induced traffic accident has his head screwed on properly.

It is also unclear what is meant by the contention that there is "no clear demonstration of notability". What would suffice, in this editor's mind? The guidelines for gauging the notability of an event suggest that notability may be established where news coverage of it is not merely "routine", but provides "critical analysis of the event". That bar has already been met repeatedly given the coverage that's out there.

Drilling down to the specific guideline page for events, we see even more clear support for this article's inclusion: "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Actually at the end of the day I don't see any support for deletion anywhere in the cited policies...

Going by the core logic presented here by those proposing or supporting deletion, we shouldn't have an article on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, simply because we already have articles on school shooting and mass murder.

Also, it should be obvious that this article does not necessarily need to have the crime victim's name as part of its title. Nor need the article be about Lien, rather than about the beating. Those are some very simple objections to address, no? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I wonder whether the editor comparing this to a fog-induced traffic accident has his head screwed on properly."? How rude. This article demonstrates what WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is all about. Can you demonstrate any WP:PERSISTENCE from this event? What long-term impact on the universe took place as a result of this commonplace road rage incident? How many road rage incidents take place in the US every year? Millions? As for the emotive " A man beaten bloody, stomped as he lay helpless on the ground, in front of his horrified wife and infant daughter, who were themselves nearly beaten. A man nearly committing vehicular homicide in self-defense. An innocent bystander risking his life to save the husband, wife, and daughter from further attack.", how many common assaults match this pattern? This is "just another crime" I'm afraid. Unless you can demonstrate persistence and that something actually happened as a result of the crime, rather than just a lame court outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonplace road rage incident"? I am sorry for your feelings, but that is just silly. There was absolutely nothing commonplace about this unprovoked gang assault in broad daylight. I defy you to find any incident even remotely similar, anywhere in U.S. history. Oh, and then make a convincing case for it being just an everyday "road rage" incident that doesn't merit any WP attention.

Please take this discussion seriously.

That said, could you please briefly describe why you think the very extensive news coverage described above is somehow of insufficient duration? I note that the coverage continues even today — as in today, February 7th, over four months later. A Google News search will reveal a steady stream of news pieces, not as many today as there were immediately following the incident, but it is still getting significant coverage even now.

To recap: there is simply no sensible or reasonable argument to be made that this was a "commonplace" incident, and it's debatable whether it could be fairly classified along with other "road rage" incidents. This was a high-profile criminal act and the notability bar is easily met. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User Factcheckers reasoning basically covers all as to why this article should not be deleted. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately violent incidents like this is routine and not at all remarkable in our society. That said, the sensationalist tone of the article and of one of the comments above me does not help make the case for this article, which appears to be written entirely by advocates for Lien. Independent coverage is all routine and there's not much to indicate that this is a "high profile" criminal act, and we're not the crimes section of a newspaper. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, Tone and content issues are easily corrected. Nor is it unusual for WP articles to be written entirely, or nearly so, by highly enthusiastic advocates for a particular subject (or one side of a particular debate). Rather, this seems to be the norm, with opposing viewpoints filtering through in a sort of "cleanup" process that generally involves substantial Talk page debate. Aside from the general need for better sourcing, the primary concern here should be for BLP violations, but I think there is a rather well-developed capacity for WP to deal with those.

I have corrected tone and "sensationalism" issues as well as the neutrality of the article.Bali88 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, I don't think any fair case can be made that this was not a "high profile" act.

Weekly and sometimes daily news coverage persisted for over two months after the incident, especially as the scandal involving undercover police officers continued to unfold. Numerous television news programs had "panel of experts" segments to discuss this specific incident, how it could have occurred, how it relates to ongoing trends among motorcycle "clubs" of various forms (i.e. whether the group involved in this case should be considered a "gang"), and what law enforcement could do to prevent similar incidents going forward. A Bronx politician had to fire one of her staffers over a related media uproar. The new Mayor of NYC specifically discussed this incident at press stops while he was campaigning. Gloria Allred did not get involved in this case because it was going to keep her name out of the papers... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this incident garnered international news coverage for weeks, not a day or two; its backlash against the police may have helped elect new leadership in New York City. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT, especially in the absence of evidence of WP:LASTING significance. WP:GEOSCOPE as well; despite a couple of mentions from across the pond, this is mostly local New York City news, with no "demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group." --BDD (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The event is four months old. WP:LASTING does not tell us that articles about recent events must be deleted until there has been time for a lasting significance to come into focus.

Just the opposite actually: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."

And it is quite obviously national US news. Paucity of mentions in England does not make it "local New York City news".

A few minutes of Googling yields a sample of non-NY news outlets that have dealt with this story:

Major newspapers:

New York Times, Washington times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, Chicago Sun-Times, Denver Post, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, Tampa Bay Times

National websites: Huffington Post, Slate, Epoch Times, Asian American News, Dealbreaker

Non-US news outlets: Various Chinese sites I can't read, The Mercury Australia, Viet Times Australia, Daily Mail, National Examiner (UK), La Jaya (Dominican Republic), International business times

As well as local news coverage in numerous states (I'd guess at least one in each U.S. state). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:EVENT. This is just your basic traffic accident which got ugly. Wikipedia is not the police blotter. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my previous comment, this happened 4 months ago, and had a splash in the tabloids and TV news. It's sensational. It makes good infotainment. But that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Come back in a year and see how history has judged this event. If it's still getting press in a year, then it's notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is shown to be false by the wide coverage in major media outlets. Seems like you are stretching the truth quite liberally to make this sound like a non-event. Ditto for the guy calling it a "basic traffic accident which got ugly". We could say Sandy Hook was a "basic bullying incident which got ugly", right? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this one for a while. While I grudgingly admit that it has gotten a lot of news coverage (CBS News even called it one of the top news stories of 2013 [1], which says more about CBS News than it does about the event), I cite this from WP:EVENTCRIT:

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, ...) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

I'm trying to figure out what the "enduring significance" is. Tragic, yes. Widely reported, yes. Enduringly significant? I don't think so. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way that I look at it...it's not like we're discussing what to include in a set of printed encyclopedias. Wikipedia evolves. There is no super reliable way to decide what will have enduring significance. If the topic becomes less significant in the next couple years, we can always delete it if it becomes irrelevant. IMO the fact that lots of people want to talk/read about a topic makes it notable. I personally think some law changes will take place as a result of the case, but of course, we shall see. I don't think there is a compelling reason to delete it if lots of people want to read about it.Bali88 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Obviously only time will tell how big and how lasting a story this remains. As time goes on, it would IMO be desirable to include this incident in a section of the WP article for whatever police force the bad actor(s) belonged to. See for example the rogue officers section at the bottom of the California Highway Patrol article; and each incident could have several lines, not just a line. I mean IN ADDITION to this article, not to replace it--UNLESS in the improbable event it loses its cachet over time. Paavo273 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Terrible title. Someone needs to work on that. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At LEAST this is the kind of subject that needs a crapload of redirects or a ton of people looking for it will never find it. If possible several redirects that don't rely on the name of the beaten. 'Cuz over time, the name will probably become less and less prominent on Google. Paavo273 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am usually on the delete side of the fence with True Crime/Tragic Event type stories, but this one got big, big, big media play and is going to be a point of reference whenever motorcycle riders and car drivers come to blows. The magnitude of the coverage propels this to Keep status, I feel. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I think this topic definitely meets notability requirements but obviously needs a complete rewrite for a number of reasons. I think the title should be changed to something more neutral and descriptive. The "beating" was only one small facet of a much longer incident. I'm coming up blank in terms of names but perhaps something like "Hollywood Stuntz Range rover incident". If anyone has any ideas, let me know. I have an interest in this topic and I think I can bring it up to code. I'll work on it tonight a little and I think I can probably have it finished by the weekend. Bali88 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have updated the article to include proposed legislation that this crime has inspired as well as Lien's lawsuit against the city of New York.Bali88 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story has a myriad of social issues that were brought forth in a massive public debate. This discussion seems almost entirely one-sided in demonstrating that this article should remain. I have no idea why its even still up for deletion. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the story was international news and national front page news for days, involved undercover police in the mayhem, attracted the attention of a nationally renowned lawyer, involves an ongoing lawsuit against New York city, and gts well over 100 hits a day on average from our readers. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, what is your opinion on the name of the article? I think it should probably be changed for a few reasons. Bali88 (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2014 (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.