Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident

RFC on redirecting
Would this whole article on one negative incident of Gibson's life be better redirected to the already extensive section at Mel_Gibson where is is already well covered.

This incident is certainly notable, but it is notable as an incident in Gibson's life, not as an event in itself. It ought to be seen in that context, along with the wider criticism and significance of Gibson. It will also be easier to monitor the section of a well-watched article for balanced proper sourcing. Yes, a realise this survived AFD. However, redirects don't need deletion, and we are perhaps long enough after the events to have as sense of perspective now.--Scott Mac 16:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support with a caveat that I doubt that BLPs should contain extensive coverage of misdemeanors in the first place. Collect (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Considered as part of our overall coverage of Gibson, a separate article gives undue weight to this matter. Whilst this article satisfies the WP:GNG, it is not possible for it to also meet the requirement of neutrality. Any significant details not in the main Gibson article can be merged, albeit with care as suggests. CIreland (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that a separate article gives undue weight to this event and that it needs to be covered in his biography in order to give the appropriate balance to this minor criminal offense. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral but leaning towards support. We ought to do something about the article because: (1) the subject is only semi-encyclopedic (as a way to present information and as a barometer of the type of information to present, Wikipedia doesn't do well as a scatter-shot list of major single personal events in the lives of celebrities); (2) the article as written gives undue attention to people's opinions and reactions, strategies, impressions, etc.; and (3) focusing so much attention on one incident raises WP:BLP issues even if we overcome everything else.  A note about BLP - normally it is only about poorly sourced contentious information that would tend to harm a living person.  In this case Gibson harmed himself and there is little we can add to that.  These are well known and well covered events, and along with some other things he did they duly hurt his credibility to begin with.  Not covering a famous person's scandalous behavior out of deference would be a problem as well.  Here, the problem isn't that we say it but how much attention we give it.  Among the things we can do are redirecting or deleting the article, in which case WP:PRESERVE suggests we find a place place for a shortened version, perhaps a couple paragraphs, in an appropriate place.  We could do nothing and watch the article improve - it has steadily improved in the past couple years and is in fact very nicely done in my opinion, just not right for the encyclopedia.  Or we could keep it in place and make an effort to conform its focus, tone, and content to the way we think we ought to deal with articles about single life events.  As a process matter it has already gone through 3 deletion attempts so there may be a hurdle of consensus to overcome, but I think a well discussed RfC is a good idea to resolve this once and for all.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support already an excessively large amount of space has been devoted to covering it at Mel Gibson. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How did they choose that section heading name over there on that page? It's kind of awkward, to say the least.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support; this can be dealt with adequately in the biography with due weight. There is no particular thing that identifies it as significant enough to require its own fork. --Errant (chat!) 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per the arguments given above. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Single, minor event that should be covered with proper weight in his biography, and per WP:NotaTabloid. First Light (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a case where the passage of time allows us to rationally consider that the emphasis given before to an event is not needed in the long run.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - as per all of the above. There was at the time a lot of press coverage but as Milowent says, the passage of time allows us to reflect and give the issue its correct weight back in the subjects biography for what was ultimately a misdemeanor charge. Off2riorob (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Even the section in the main article is undue weight and should be merged with the previous section (Alcohol abuse). Hans Adler 08:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and redirected this, as this looks like being the consensus. If the discussion here begins to flow in the opposite direction, then it can be reverted.--Scott Mac 11:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)