Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident


 * 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 to delete, default to keep. This does not preclude a merger if consensus for one can be found. Sandstein 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson DUI incident

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These sorts of pages sugarcoat the issue and make it unnecessarily hard to navigate. This information, at its core, involves one man, really. Mel Gibson. None of the officers are notable, nor did they do notable things. The article involves only one notable person. All of it should be at Mel Gibson. After the consensus at Articles for deletion/Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident it seemed a good time to gauge consensus here, following my attempt at a merge several months ago that didn't generate much debate- M ask  07:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly a major and controversial event that received widespread news coverage. The article is well-sourced and verified, and while I accept that coverage of news events has to be limited, there are plenty of news events that currently have their own articles. It's written in an encyclopedic style, and I can't see any reason to delete. Walton monarchist89 09:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Point- its not a delete, really, just a merge. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]]
 * Then you should not have come here. This is Articles for deletion.  Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage of the process.  Only come to AFD if an administrator hitting a delete button is what you actually want. Uncle G 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC}


 * When more consensus is needed or if there are strong feelings involved, an AfD is perfectly suitable for a merge. kthxbye. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]]
 * Point. In order to point out how wrongheaded articles such as the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" and the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident" are, consider whether there should now be a Wikipedia article on the "Lisa Nowak attempted kidnapping incident." Of course there should not be any such article. But her incident is receiving a lot of news coverage. Her relation to her incident is in many ways the same as Michael Richards' and Mel Gibson's relationships to their incidents. She too has celebrity status. Bus stop 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be such an article on the Nowak incident. There is an article, for instance, on 2006 North Korean nuclear test. Lots of other major news events are given their own article. So why not this one? If it were merged to Mel Gibson, that article would become ridiculously long, or else a lot of verified content and detail would be lost. Walton monarchist89 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The nuclear test would be notable for any non-nuclear country. Would a guy blowing up during an arrest be notable if he were not a celebrity? this incident is notable solely for Gibson himself, and belongs at his article. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]]
 * Point. I don't think there should be an additional Lisa Nowak article, about her recent incident, and I don't think you think there should be one either. You haven't cited any reasons why you think there should be a separate article on the Lisa Nowak incident. What do you see in common between the North Korean nuclear test and Mel Gibson's arrest for drunken driving and his antisemitic comments? Mel Gibson is one individual. He is not a country. And I don't recognize the comparison between the antisemitic mumblings of a drunk and the very sobering fact of the detonation of a nuclear device. Bus stop 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my comment? Thats the same point I made. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a fairly well-known incident, the article itself seems comprehensive and well-referenced. fraggle 09:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * fraggle -- But it doesn't deserve an article of it's own. The details of the incident that is the subject of this article can be handled perfectly well on the Mel Gibson article page. In fact it already is thoroughly spelled out on the Mel Gibson article page. Therefore, the only question is, why this separate page? Bus stop 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep without merging. The article contains way too much material for it to make sense to merge it into Mel Gibson, and most of it seems to be worth keeping. None of the officers or other related parties need to be notable to be covered in an article about the incident. (Their relative non-notability would only preclude individual articles about them). –Sommers (Talk) 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sommers -- This is an article about a living person. And the person is not primarily know for anything nefarious. There is way too much negative material devoted to a minor incident in an otherwise productive and positive life. The reason he is notable enough to be in Wikipedia in the first place is that he has accomplished a lot and, of course, those accomplishments are well documented in verifiable, responsibly published material. You point out the quantity of material in this article -- but that is a big part of the problem. Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living people clearly say that we don't go overboard heaping negative implications on the subject of an article. This is a thoroughly negative article. It is about drunk driving and antisemitism. This can and probably should be noted in a general article about Mel Gibson. But it is entirely improper (according to Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living people) to focus on negativity to the exclusion of all other ingredients of a positive nature in a person's life. The content of this article may not be acceptable in the main, Mel Gibson, article. But it is certainly not acceptable in this article. That is because this article is totally focused on the negative to the exclusion of the positive. Bus stop 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not wikinews or wikitrivia or wikipeoplemagazine. The event is and can be more than amply covered in the main Mel Gibson article, and I see no need for every celebrity run-in with the law. Borrowing what User:Barno said in the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident AfD, the parent article can more than amply accommodate what will likely be a matter of little lasting significance. If “incidents” associated with Lenny Bruce or Jim Morrison are covered well enough in the article on those individuals, the same goes for Mel Gibson or Stephen Colbert. Like the Michael Richards article, most of “well-sourced and verified” “comprehensive” material in this article is mostly just a pile-on of media reports. A judicious copy-edit when merging whatever is savageable can deal with the fact there is "too much material". Agent 86 10:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete "Well-sourced" (or "well-referenced") is not an argument to keep this article; it can and should be just as well-sourced in one article under Mel Gibson. "Too much" information is too much information whether in this article or in the Mel Gibson article; judicious trimming back would serve either article well. Mel Gibson was driving drunk. Mel Gibson muttered antisemitic statements. That is not the subject for a stand alone encyclopedia article. The correct perspective is to see the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" in the context of the life of Mel Gibson. The incorrect perspective is to see the life of Mel Gibson as an appendage to the "Mel Gibson DUI incident." Bus stop 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge the essential information. No need to create entire articles everytime a "celebrity" does something. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep without merging. Still a major event that continues to have ramifications and is still referenced whenever a celebrity flies off the handle (see Michael Richards, the guy from Grey's Anatomy, and I even heard watercooler chat comparing Governor Arnold's office tapes to it). If there's an issue with how the content is presented and any so-called "sugar coating" (though one must be careful to not mistake sugar coating for an attempt at NPOV and avoiding WP:BLP issues) that should be handled via WP:BOLD.23skidoo 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. What "ramifications" does it continue to have? Bus stop 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This one incident did incredible damage to a very notable person's reputation. Nardman1 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Fine -- it did "incredible damage to a very notable person's reputation." Isn't the question: in what context that "damage" is to be seen? Is that damage to be seen in the context of this one-day incident? No. The correct context in which that "damage" is to be seen is within the context of the entire lifetime of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mel Gibson has hidden his true nature from the public his whole life. This incident fundamentally alters how the public views him. It changes the context of what is really known about his life. It reveals his previous history as a lie. Nardman1 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. In point of fact Mel Gibson has long been considered by some to have antisemitic tendencies. But even if that were not so, I don't think biographies of living people should receive branch articles when some editors feel the subject of the article has reached a significantly different stage of life. I think we still have to respect the biological integrity of one person's life. Bus stop 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Any info needed can be used in his main article.  We are here for overviews, not every little thing he's ever done.  Is the Tom Cruise couch jumping incident gonna get it's own page then. Booshakla 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently detailed and extensive enough to support a separate article although in general I am against separate articles for such incident's. TonyTheTiger 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This incident can easily be incorporated into Mel Gibsons article, I cannot see any need for a separate article •C H ILL DO UBT•     19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Too big to merge, seen many other event articles; this is clearly notable, well written and sourced. Whilding87  19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Essential information can be merged into Mel Gibson article. Much of the other data, while potentially interesting, is not important enough to merit a separate article. Keeping this would set a bad precedent for separate articles for every celebrity divorce case, as well. John Carter 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If such articles are properly sourced to indicate that the incident being discussed is notable on its own, and has sufficient independent published references, then why is it a "bad precedent" to allow those articles if their text is too large to incorporate in the main article? I generally have no issues with articles that are well sourced and on notable events. Dugwiki 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article appears to be well referenced and sourced, and the article also seems to indicate the incident in and of its own right meets notability guidlines. So this article seems to be a perfectly acceptable and notable topic.  Not a good candidate for deletion, just my opinion. Dugwiki 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. I think the primary questions involve context and perspective. Those are the things that shift whether the article receives it's own heading or whether the article is seen under the heading of an article on Mel Gibson. The incident written in this article does not stand alone, apart from Mel Gibson. It is firmly attached to the life of Mel Gibson. That is the proper heading. We should see this incident from the perspective of the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mel Gibson is the central character in the event, but that does not mean that the event isn't notable enough on its own to warrant its own article. As an analogy, the article John F. Kennedy assassination is clearly an article that is squarely centered on John F. Kennedy (or, if you prefer, Lee Harvey Oswald). However clearly that doesn't necessarilly imply that the article about the event needs to be merged with the articles about the people associated with the event.  I doubt anyone is seriously looking to merge that article into the JFK main article, for example.
 * As another example, consider this from a reader's perspective. It certainly seems possible, I think, that a reader will be interested in searching for information about this incident without having much interest in reading about Mel Gibson himself or even caring much about Mel Gibson's career or biography.  Since the amount of information about this event is large enough that it can fill its own article page, by splitting it off into a subarticle you are allowing readers to focus on reading about just the event without having to sift through everything else associated with Mel Gibson in his main article.
 * Thus I disagree with the assertion that an otherwise well sourced and sufficiently large article about an event that received extended international media coverage needs to be deleted, nor do I find any part of policy or in the guidelines that suggests it. Dugwiki 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Dugwiki -- The reader would not have to "sift through everything else" to find information about the DUI incident in the main article because it would all be found in one area. For what reason would the facts of that incident not be in contiguous paragraphs within the main article on Mel Gibson? The assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald does not compare with Mel Gibson's drunken driving incident, even with the utterances of antisemitic sentiments. It is an incident of a totally different order. One is the president of the United States. The other is not. One is still alive. The other's life is not over. Bus stop 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Counterpoint Bus Stop - I was not implying DUI = Assassination. I was saying that by your prior reasoning we shouldn't have the JFK assassination article either. I see no problem, though, either in policy or guidelines, with seperating a large verified section regarding a notable event of a main article into a subarticle when the subarticle contains sufficient verifiable references.  In the case when there is enough seperate published verifiable information about an event that it can fill its own article in length, and the incident appears to have received multiple notable coverage, then it makes sense to split that incident off as a subarticle from the person's main article.  So unless you're claiming that this article would comfortably fit in the Mel Gibson article, I remain unconvinced there is a non-WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason to delete. Dugwiki 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT specifically discourages the creation of articles on current events which may eventually become obsolete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a supplement to the National Enquirer. Thousands of people are arrested for DUI every year, and I would suspect that many of them get upset and say inappropriate things to the arresting officers. There is nothing NOTABLE about this type of incident. The only thing which is notable in this event is Mel Gibson. By giving this incident its own seperate article, Wikipedia is giving an undue amount of WEIGHT to a negative incident in this living person's life, which runs contrary to WP:BLP. Unlike other celebrity bios on Wikipedia which frequently contain ONE "Controversy" section; Gibson's bio is over run with sections which seem to push the POV that he is a homophobe, a racist, anti-semetic,a drug addict and an alcoholic. As IF that isn't bad enough - there is ALSO this free-standing article, which has provided an additional platform for editors to label him an anti-semite. The excessive amount of space that Wikipedia has dedicated to this type of material about this LIVING PERSON constitutes attempted defamation of character in my opinion. Clearly, more than 75% of Wikipedia's editorial "space" dedicated to Mel Gibson paints him in a very negative light and, therefore, cannot be considered NUETRAL and OBJECTIVE. This article's very existence creates a weight issue that runs contrary to Wikipedia's own policy on WP:BLP Cleo123 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To reply, WP:NOT only talks about not writing opinions on current affiars that might quickly become obsolete. The policy, however, does not talk about the actual information and facts of a news event becoming obsolete.  So while you shouldn't write an opinion piece about whether or not Mel Gibson behaved badly, for example, you can write an article about a news event involving Mel Gibson provided it has sufficient sourcing and is large enough and has enough detail to warrant being split from the main article. I also do not agree with the assertion that the article's existence in principle somehow "gives undue weight" to a possible negative aspect of Mel Gibson's character.  So long as the article refers to the actual facts of the event, as reported by verifiable published sources, and doesn't delve into personal editorial opinion, there is no issue here in regards to undue negative impact. Dugwiki 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing my point. The article should not have been created in the first place and it has become a platform for opinions, including those of a blogger for goodness sake! Of course, the article is detailed and well-sourced, I'm sure there has been considerable edit warring in its creation. I think Wikipedia should be steering clear of this type of article in general. It is not encyclopedic material. Thousands of people are arrested for DUI each year, why not write articles about them? Surely, there are reliable sources to be found in local newspapers. Just because there are sources to be found, it doesn't make the incident worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Is this current event continuing to receive media attention? No, it isn't, because it doesn't have lasting significance. Why doesn't Wikipedia have a Zsa Zsa Gabor slap incident article? Or a Brandy car accident incident? By singling out this one celebrity in particular Wikipedia is demonstrating an editorial BIAS against him. Cleo123 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above argument assumes incorrectly that the thousands of DUI arrests actually receive sufficient, reliable, multiple notable published coverage in news publications. Clearly the coverage of this DUI incident is much greater than a normal DUI incident.  So noone is arguing that all DUI incidents should have their own article. I'm arguing that this DUI incident should. Dugwiki 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Because he made racist remarks? Cleo123 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. I think that just judging by two articles of this sort, namely the Michael Richards article and the Mel Gibson article, it seems to me that the reason for both of those articles as separate, "breakaway" articles, to focus on one negative incident, is to heap a special dose of shame on these people. I feel that articles of this sort are motivated, perhaps unconsciously, by deeply held sentiments concerning what is right and what is wrong. I can't prove that. But I am cynical of alternate explanations. Many people are outraged by the things said by Michael Richards and Mel Gibson about certain groups within the larger society. It is not too far fetched a hypothesis that people are motivated to set things right by highlighting such shameful speech in a separate article. But Wikipedia should resist this. Bus stop 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply. I must disagree.  Perhaps the extended news coverage was motivated by this, but the WP article should have been created (regardless of the actual reasons held by its creator) because the topic meets WP:Notability--due to the extended news and othre coverage. Black Falcon 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- Setting up a separate article on Wikipedia highlights whatever that article is about. It is a judgement call on the part of editors. Whatever motivation you are attributing to "extended news coverage" infects Wikipedia as well. Wikipedia has readily available solution to this problem. The DUI incident can be put in the context of Mel Gibson's life. That is where it belongs. Bus stop 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - in that case, you are proposing a WP:MERGE, in which case this article should not have been nominated for AfD. Whether the article should be merged is a matter for the talk page, not AfD.  So, for now, I will continue to argue keeping the article and may indeed support a merge to the Mel Gibson article later (as you do make a good, even if debatable, argument).  Black Falcon 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment My question above was a serious one, and I'm not at all surprised to see that it has gone unanswered. To answer this question is to be completely honest about what motivated the creation of this stand alone article in the first place. My question hits at the very core of this matter. The article is not about someone being arrested for DUI, it is an excuse for editors to elaborate on the theme that Gibson is a racist. By giving undue weight to such material, Wikipedia is not only defaming Gibson's character but aggrevating race relations by serving as a forum for debate among editors whereby individuals can be labelled racists. Cleo123 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a serious one and it has gone unanswered until now. But please, the reason that it was left unanswered is probably more that people went to sleep rather than that they could not give an honest article.  No, the content of his remarks is not significant.  It's the fact that it gathered so much news coverage (multiple, non-trivial, over an extended period of time)!  It doesn't matter if he called for the destruction of the UN or expressed a desire to be sent into space upon his death.  As long as it had received the same media coverage, it would pass WP:Notability.  Yes, the article is about what he said rather than the DUI itself, because that is what the media coverage was mostly about.  If there are any unsourced/defamatory statements there, by all means please remove them pre WP:BLP. Black Falcon 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- Yes, the DWI incident is perfectly notable, in the context of a Mel Gibson article. We should not be setting up billboards of shame. In most instances, what happens in a person's life should be seen in the context of that person's life, in my opinion. The assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald is an example of an exception to this. The difference (among others) is that John F. Kennedy is a figure of far greater prominence than Mel Gibson. We don't set up freestanding articles to showcase an incident despite the fact that we feel that the behavior depicted is deserving of condemnation. Bus stop 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reasoned and specific arguments (I am a bit frustrated over the many "delete - awful article" and "keep - perfect article" comments that should up on AfD). In response to your comment: this is a billboard of shame only if it is NPOV (making claims without sourcing or making unbalanced claims).  You are making a value-judgment (which I share) that anti-Semitism is a bad thing, but such value-judgments are not relevant to whether content is encyclopedic (which means passing WP:Notability).  Although I agree that JFK is a more prominent figure than Gibson, that is still a value-judgment which others may or may not share.  I personally like Mel Gibson as an actor and director (I can't say as a person, because I don't know him as a person).  You say that "we feel that the behavior depicted is deserving of condemnation", but it is quite likely that someone who is an anti-Semite contributed to this article and/or thinks it should be kept.  It shouldn't matter what we feel (although I'm realist enough to admit that it does) as long as the subject passes WP:Notability.  Also, a possible merger to the Mel Gibson article is a matter for the talk page (an idea for which a strong case can be made, in my opinion), not AfD.  Black Falcon 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is well-sourced (WP:V), WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and passes WP:Notability based on the multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I see no valid reason for deletion.  Also note, please, that the nominator actually intended WP:MERGE of this article.  However, I don't think it ought to be merged as the subject-matter passes WP:Notability on its own (the sources are about the incident itself, not just about Mel Gibson generally).  Black Falcon 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- How can a source be about the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" without being about "Mel Gibson?" Bus stop 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that I said "not about Mel Gibson generally". What I meant was that the sources don't talk about his life overall and mention the DUI incident in one passing sentence.  They are about the incident itself.  I hope this clarifies my meaning.  Black Falcon 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Merge the main content to Mel Gibson (though most of it is already there), and the rest to Wikinews. There can be a link in Mel Gibson to the Wikinews article. The incident is not, on its own, notable enough that anyone will see it as major news in 2016. Argyriou (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Agent 86 and Nescio. Merge just the main facts to the main article.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Major notable incident that had international notoriety. And citing the deletion of one article, besides looking like a reverse-WP:POKEMAN, does not establish precendent. --Oakshade 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. -- Oakshade -- The deletion of the Michael Richards "breakaway" article is not "precedent" for deletion of this article. The facts in this article are properly a part of the article covering the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 06:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT. and all the arguments for delete. --MaNeMeBasat 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not need a separate article, merge to Mel Gibson. --Vsion 05:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, quite notable incident, definitely more to say about this than could be reasonably covered in the main bio article. Everyking 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Point. -- Everyking -- Quantity is not quality. Bus stop 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We need both. Everyking 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is true that the article isn't about someone being arrested for DUI, in the sense that another famous person arrested might not get a similar article.  However, that doesn't mean it's just being used to call him a racist.  People find the incident notable because they connect it to racism.  But that's their business; Wikipedia only has the article because people find the incident notable, and should not say "some people find this article notable for an unacceptable reason".  If it's notable, it's notable. Ken Arromdee 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Ken Arromdee The primary reason for an article such as this is to highlight a shameful incident in a person's life, and I don't think Wikipedia should be used this way. Bus stop 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that ignores notability criteria. --Oakshade 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Ken Arromdee It is not just "their business." Wikipedia is highlighting a "racist" incident. It is Wikipedia's responsibility to be balanced in reporting this. Having an unnecessary article to highlight this is tantamount to erecting a billboard for this purpose. It's purpose is to heap more shame on the individual than the single article could accomplish. The reasoning that there is too much material on the DUI incident to fit into the main article is roundabout thinking. Such reasoning justifies not only putting unnecessary information into an article but also providing that unnecessary material with a special showcase in the form of a freestanding article about one unfortunate and shameful incident. That is vindictive. In my opinion it is a test of whether such material is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia if it can fit logically into a general biography. Exceptions can be found for reasons such as prominence. But Mel Gibson is not as prominent as I would feel a person would need to be to warrant an article solely about a drunk driving incident. Indeed the editors should be wrestling with how to include this DUI incident into a generalized Mel Gibson article. They should not be affording themselves the luxury of going on endlessly, as they are prone to do in an article such as this one. Bus stop 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. -- Oakshade -- Not at all. The editorial decisions as to what should stay and what should be excised from this article should be made in the context of the main article, which concerns itself with the entirety of the life of the person named Mel Gibson. The perspective in this article is all wrong. It is not the content that I "don't like." It is the context that I take exception to. I never said it was not "notable." It is notable in the context of the main article. That is the preferable perspective, in my opinion. Bus stop 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that it's unfortunate that a shameful event in someone's life is highlighted, but again, that would be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement to delete. As WP:NOTE states "...the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether 'the world' has judged a topic to be notable."  When there are multiple published works primarily about a topic, "the world" deemed that topic notable whether we think its sad or not.  And there's too much subject-specific information in this article to be included in the Mel Gibson article.  --Oakshade 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. -- Oakshade -- It is not "unfortunate that a shameful event in someone's life is highlighted." The highlighting of the shameful event is deliberate. Deliberate and unfortunate are two different things. It is the freestanding article that accomplishes the "highlighting." You say there is "subject-specific information." Yes, I agree, and the subject is: Mel Gibson. Bus stop 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Counterpoint I am going to disagree and say that this is not a deliberate attempt at shaming. It is, rather, a deliberate attempt to organize a large amount of information about a noteworthy event into a single article. The article's purpose is not to defame or shame Mel Gibson, but to report the facts of the event in an encyclopedic form.  The fact that you might be uncomfortable with those facts doesn't alter the purpose of the article, nor does being uncomfortable constitute legitimate grounds for deletion of an otherwise well sourced article.  Dugwiki 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * GassyGuy is correct. You are confusing news worthiness with notability. This event has no lasting significance. Although there will be more biographies published about Gibson, I sincerely doubt that any books will be written on the DUI incident. Regardless, no author would dedicate 75% of a biography on Gibson to the incident. Why should Wikipedia? The incident has no lasting notability or impact on anyone other than Gibson, possibly, and does not belong as a seperate article in any legitimate encyclopedia. Cleo123 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if this event isn't "lasting". Please see WP:Notability is Generally Permanent.  And many would argue that is is much more than about soley Mel Gibson but a very notable and high profile case of modern anti-semitism that's coming from an extremely influential individual.  But putting that aside, this still easily passes WP:NOTE.  --Oakshade 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're really reaching. If I were to follow your logic, we should create a seperate article on the Paris Exposed.com story or any other news item that receives global news coverage, based upon your interpretation of notability. I appreciate your honesty in saying that you see it as a case of modern anti-semitism. I think, however, that you defeat your own argument with your candor. Wikipedia reports facts. It is not a repository for cataloging the racial opinions of the well known. It is a misuse of Wikipedia, for ethnic groups to use it as a tool to label and catalogue racists and anti- semites. Potential damage and defamation to the character of living people outweighs any legitimate "need" for this sort of article. Cleo123 08:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what sort of "damage" you're talking about here. If the article is objectively stating the verifiable published facts, then it is not a tool for slander or libel. If there is a specific part of the article that you feel is original research or original editorial opinion, then feel free to dispute or remove that part of the article. But that would not earn the deletion of the entire article if most of it is factually accurate and objective. Dugwiki 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now the argument to delete is the article is defamation of character??? When an article is very well sourced following strict WP:BLP guidelines such as this one is, there is nothing slanderous.  Unless you can show a case that the Los Angeles Times, BBC News, Associated Press, ABC News etc. have all printed unfactual slanderous material, the case that this article is "defamation to the character" is outright nonsense.  --Oakshade 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Agent 86. I don't understand why everyone wants Wikipedia to do the job of Wikinews. Newsworthiness is not notability and this is covered in the article about Mel Gibson. GassyGuy 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The existence of this article makes a fine example of systemic bias: we tend to fix too much our attention to what happens just now, to famous, mostly American, people. This incident is very important in the life of Mel Gibson, and perhaps in the life of people especially liking or resenting him. As for the world at large, it is just one of millions of similar accidents happening every day, affecting just the life of the people involved. So, this is an event pertaining to Gibson, and as such should be covered in the article about him. --Goochelaar 09:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I always compare this logic to pulling up the first plants that sprout, because for the sake of symmetry they all must sprout at the very same time. You don't counter systemic bias by deleting what people have already written; you counter it by writing more in underdeveloped areas. Everyking 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The simile about sprouts is nice and useful, but not relevant to my opinion (which probably did not transpire in what I wrote): I am not saying, for instance, "Delete the article about Mel Gibson because there is not an article about (obscure 15th century icelandic poet)". This would be plain wrong, of course. I am just saying that by some kind of optical illusion due to living here and now we might tend to consider as notable events which are not, and in my opinion this is the case for the DUI incident. --Goochelaar 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although it is "one of millions of similar accidents happening every day", it is one that happened to be noted in hundreds of non-trivial papers, news channels, and other sources over the course of several weeks. Plenty of other celebrities have had DUIs, but none of them have articles about it because they didn't get so much coverage.  Black Falcon 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Black Falcon. There might be millions of accidents a day, but the vast bulk of them don't receive nearly as much international attention as this incident over a wide spread of time.  I would not support articles about a random DUI which received only a momentary blurb in a paper, but I do support this article about this DUI. Dugwiki 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- No one is claiming it is not notable. But Mel Gibson already has a page devoted to his life. He is not so prominent, nor is this incident so prominent, to warrant a separate article devoted to it. His DUI incident is properly seen in the context of his life, where his accomplishments can balance his missteps. That, in my opinion, is consistent with our intention of maintaining a neutral point of view -- not by providing a less than flattering incident with it's own freestanding article. Editors need to debate what is worthy of inclusion and what should be discarded, on the page that is the article about Mel Gibson. In my opinion this freestanding article gives editors the green light to include too much. Wikipedia editors should be disciplined enough to write a concise article about Mel Gibson that covers the DUI incident with the inclusion of appropriate information. Bus stop 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You make a strong case, but as I have noted above, this is a matter for the talk page. I personally don't think this incident is as notable as, say, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria "incident", but that is my personal opinion.  If the article can be reasonably merged into Mel Gibson (by reasonable I mean so that the whole biography is not dominated by this DUI), then by all means either build consensus for such an action or be WP:BOLD and do it.  But wanting to merge an article is not a reason to request its deletion.  Black Falcon 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is an attempt to sort out the problem of news items on wikipedia at Wikipedia talk:Notability (news). I'd recommend delete on this article as it isn't encyclopedic, it should be a footnote to an article on the notable Mel Gibson. MLA 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above Comment would appear to be a Delete Cleo123 02:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To say that something is or is not encyclopedic without reference to WP:Notability amounts to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What one person doesn't finds interesting, others may be fascinated with.  Black Falcon 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment thanks for pointing that out. Might I suggest that you engage with the discussion at wp:notability (news) as my comment is in relation to minor items such as this failing to be sufficiently covered in WP:Notability and so an unencyclopedic news item such as this is not sufficiently covered by current guidelines so reference to them is not appropriate given that they do not address this particular issue. MLA 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments regarding the proposed guideline are at Notability (news). I would support the guideline if my suggested criterion was added--otherwise it's just too restrictive and would exclude many featured articles as well as hundreds/thousands of historical events for years/decades.  Black Falcon 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that the discussion referenced above clearly establishes that WP:Notability is not a valid argument for keeping this free standing article. The current policy proposal speaks directly to this issue in saying: "News items that do not meet the above criteria but involve notable subjects should be included in the article of the subject, if such an addition is considered noteworthy to the article concerned." Cleo123 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the discussion referenced is, as you noted, a proposal only, and would (if accepted) be a guideline and not a policy. WP:Notability, on the other hand, is an accepted guideline, and according to it, the content of this article should stay (although personally I think a strong argument can be made for merging into Mel Gibson--I don't think a good one can be/has been made for deletion).  Black Falcon 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My understanding is that the current proposal is intended to specifically address unencyclopedic news items such as this one, that really aren't specifically addressed in the current guidelines and not covered by Notability. There are already four paragraphs in Gibson's bio discussing the DUI incident. I suspect that if this article is deleted, some of the discarded info will undoubtedly find its way back into his bio. In this case, I believe a merger would be improper and unmaageable. There is far too much detail in this article. Cleo123 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To say that "the current proposal is intended to specifically address unencyclopedic news items such as this one" seems like trying to create a guideline based on a prior personal (subjective) conception of what is and is not "encyclopedic". WP:Notability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT already establish which articles are and are not encyclopedic, allowing WP:Consensus to make a final decision in controversial cases.  If this article is "not covered by Notability", as you note, then that means it is by default encyclopedic.  I support the idea of creating a specific notability guideline for news items, but I do not favor one that automatically assumes exclusion to be the default--I think this is an elitist notion that goes against the principles on which WP operates (my suggestion for an additional criterion is in the "Please consider the following (changes)" section of Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)--if you are willing to read it, as it is a bit lengthy, I would appreciate your comments).  If an article passes the 5 policies and guidelines listed above, the burden of proof is on those who want to eliminate the article.  If it does not, the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the article.  Noting that, a merger is still an acceptable solution for me as long as significant (in quality, not quantity) is not lost--of course, in this case I think it would be prudent to discuss it on the talk page.  Also, a merger does not have to be full-content, it can be selective (if a full-content merge was performed, the DUI incident would overwhelm Gibson's biography).  Cheers, Black Falcon 06:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon, please do not misunderstand my remarks. I am not trying to create anything based upon my own subjective opinions. I was simply providing cursory summary of statements made by Edison & others on the project discussion page, as to their objective. Unfortunately, I'm working a deadline right now so I haven't had the time to read through the entire discussion, yet. When I finish what I'm working on, I look forward to reading your remarks and joining in this valuable discussion. Whatever consensus is reached will surely be helpful in providing clearer guidelines for this type of AFD discussion. I am not adverse to some content being merged back into the main article. I understand that editors have worked very hard on this. My objection is to a free standing article. Cheers! Cleo123 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, then, for the misunderstanding. Yes, this article would be deleted by the standards of the proposed guideline, but I still maintain it meets WP:Notability.  My concern regarding a possible merge was not the contributions of various editors (although perhaps that should have been part of my consideration as well), as I did not even know this article existed before this AfD, but rather the loss of content that even on its own passess WP:Notability.  I would not mind seeing this article being selectively merged into Mel Gibson, but I do not think that should be done based on this AfD discussion--rather, as part of a consensus on the talk page (consensus on whether the merge ought to be performed and, if so, what content should be transferred).  I am generally of the opinion that some kind of news guideline would be useful and intend to contribute to (or at least comment on) its creation.  Best of luck with meeting the deadline, Black Falcon 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. It is improper to lift one incident from Mel Gibson's life and display it for the world to see. This is an abuse of Wikipedia. The facts in the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" article may be notable, but the article is not notable. It is not the province of Wikipedia to hold people up for special shame; that is the opposite of neutral point of view, and it is an abuse of the power vested in the hands of the editors of Wikipedia. The incident is far too inconsequential to deserve an article of it's own. If the editors lack the discipline to hack the facts down to a form that reflects the DUI incident's proportional relationship to the entire lifetime of Mel Gibson, that is a separate and different problem. But the article is primarily improper. The Mel Gibson article already covers the DUI incident. Therefore this article is redundant, and should be deleted. Bus stop 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Counter-Point. Bus stop, the media lifted this "one incident from Mel Gibson's life and display[ed] it for the world to see" before this article was created at WP.  This article is simply a response to the great volume of media coverage.  You say that "It is not the province of Wikipedia to hold people up for special shame", yet you are making a prior subjective judgment that what he did was shameful (I agree, but that is irrelevant).  The article does not condemn Gibson--it only notes the facts as they occurred.  If you wish to see a merger of this article into Mel Gibson, then by all means go ahead and propose it with mergeto.  Cheers, Black Falcon 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- There is no "subjective judgement" that drunk driving and antisemitism are shameful. They are fully frowned upon by most people. With qualifications, these behaviors are unlawful. You say that the article "does not condemn Gibson." But that is not necessary, since the focus of the article is 1) drunk driving and 2) antisemitism. Those behaviors, in and of themselves, are normally associated with condemnation. The DUI incident was already covered in the Mel Gibson article before this article was created. This article was created by a cut and paste from the Mel Gibson article. There are presently four paragraphs on the DUI incident in the Mel Gibson article. No article on Wikipedia is ever "finished." Whether this article is deleted or not the editors of the Mel Gibson article will continue modifying that article, including their coverage of the DUI incident. I see little reason to propose a merger of this article to the Mel Gibson article. I find this article offensive and I'm not inclined to start a process that will take longer than the delete process that is presently underway. The end result is the same, anyway. Bus stop 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Bus stop, actually, any judgment that something is or is not shameful is subjective (even if most people consider them as such).  Legality has no bearing on the shamefulness of an act (remember, slavery, apartheid, witch trials were all legal at some time in some place).  You write that it is not necessary for the article to explicitly condemn Gibson as drunk driving and anti-Semitism are already condemnable.  Notwithstanding my point above, I believe the murder of over 800,000 persons is a condemnable act, but Rwandan Genocide is and should be a separate article from History of Rwanda.  Our role at WP is not to judge whether particular facts (as long as they meet WP:BLP) are beneficial or harmful to the reputations of various individuals.  The fact that there was so much media coverage means this passes WP:Notability--and thus, so long as the information is reported in an NOR and NPOV manner, it is encyclopedic.  Your finding the article "offensive" is no reason to delete it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT).  A neo-Nazi might find the Holocaust article offensive, but that is no reason to delete (and please don't interpret this as me accusing you of neo-Nazism).  And the merge will not have the same outcome as deleting the article as deleting means all of the content is lost, while a selective merge implies cutting out extraneous/repetitive parts. Black Falcon 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- Rwandan genocide should be a separate article from History of rwanda. Agreed. But should Mel Gibson DWI incident be a separate article from Mel Gibson? Bus stop 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Bus stop, my point was that the fact that a particular incident harms the reputation of a person or country (you wrote that the article only adds "special shame" to Gibson) is no reason to delete an article on that incident.  As for the question you pose, I will answer somewhat long-windedly.  The DWI incident certainly can be a separate article as it passes WP:Notability.  Whether it ought to be a separate article is a different judgment and involves personal preferences on style.  If you do not think it ought to be a separate article (as you clearly do not), propose that it be merged to Mel Gibson.  I might support a merge if valid reasons (including stylistic ones such as user-friendliness, compactness, etc.) were given on the article's talk page.  However, even if the article were to be turned into a redirect, AfD is not the appropriate venue for accomplishing this. Black Falcon 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- The Mel Gibson DWI incident article serves no other purpose than to harm Mel Gibson. For what other purpose does it exist? Mel Gibson is not a country containing millions of citizens. Notability, in this instance, means worthy of being included in the Mel Gibson article. Notability does not mean provision with a showcase to facilitate better display. What purpose does the stand alone article serve for a merely notable incident in the life of an individual such as Mel Gibson for whom there already is an article on Wikipedia? Bus stop 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - It does serve a purpose, but that is not to disparage Gibson. Rather, it is to document an incident which has generated a great amount of media coverage.  The reason why I think the DWI incident article can stand on its own is this: the incident has received extended non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources.  The news reports sourced in the Mel Gibson DWI incident article are primarily about the incident itself and not Mel Gibson himself (i.e., his life, family, history, etc.).  Thus, the incident is by itself the primary subject of the news coverage.  If Gibson was not a celebrity, then of course this would not have gotten this much coverage.  That, however, is irrelevant as Gibson is a celebrity and the incident has received a great amount of news coverage.  Black Falcon 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- Mel Gibson is not an appendage to the Mel Gibson DWI incident. The Mel Gibson DWI incident is an appendage to the life of Mel Gibson. How can the news reports be "primarily about the incident itself and not Mel Gibson himself?" Do the news reports refer to him as the unidentified person? The name serves as the representative for the person. If you mention the name "Mel Gibson" you are referring to "Mel Gibson himself." Can you tell me how "Mel Gibson" does not imply Mel Gibson? Bus stop 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply - when I wrote that the articles are about the DWI incident itself, I meant that they are about what Gibson did, what he said, what other said, what happend to him, etc during (and in relation to) the incident. They are not about when Gibson was born, what movies he's starred in/directed (these are mentioned trivially), his family, etc.  The articles are about the Mel Gibson DWI incident--they are not biographies of Mel Gibson's life.  I am not saying that the sources don't mention Gibson--they do, of course (after all, it's the Mel Gibson DUI incident)--however, they mention him in the context of the DWI.  Black Falcon 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- Of course there is no explanation of the wider details of Mel Gibson's life in the news reports of the drunk driving incident. That is unremarkable. I don't think that supports a rationale for the existence of a separate article for a DWI incident. What you are describing is simply the normal way in which news reporting agencies cover news events. They do not write entire biographies. They only mention what is pertinent to the immediate event. Bus stop 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply. Bus stop, you wrote that "They only mention what is pertinent to the immediate event".  Individual events in a person's life usually do not receive this much attention (sure, movies Gibson has directed/starred in have, and they have their own articles).  But this one has!  Thus, the subject of this article, because of the amount of coverage it has received, passes WP:Notability.  Black Falcon 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Black Falcon -- Mel Gibson's celebrity is not really relevant here, I don't think. What matters, as you have been pointing out, is notability. Notability qualifies the material to be on Wikipedia. It would be acceptable to extract certain facets of Mel Gibson's life for separate articles, but such extraction can not be indiscriminate. The discrimination called for, I think, concerns whether or not we find wider influence. The question one has to ask oneself is: Does this aspect of Mel Gibson's life have influence beyond his life? Mel Gibson's movies take on a life of their own. His acting role in a movie can be propounded upon because it takes on a life of it's own. It becomes a part of the popular culture. But drunk driving and the particular form of antisemitism displayed by Mel Gibson in the July 2006 incident, are core issues in his life. When one expounds upon those issues one runs the risk of distorting Mel Gibson's life. This is because these issues do not have wider influence beyond the core identity of Mel Gibson. And what I am of course further saying is that a separate article devoted to issues that do not have influence extending beyond the person's life certainly would have the tendency to place undue emphasis on those issues. Bus stop 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply. Bus stop -- I do agree that extracting certain parts of an individual's life should not be done indiscriminately.  As you have noted, one criterion (and in my opinion the superior criterion) is whether an event has influence beyond that person's life.  Another criterion (inferior to the first but still valid) is whether it receives non-trivial coverage from multiple sources over an extended period of time, where such coverage discusses the individual primarily in context of the event (as opposed to in context of the person's life overall).  As I have noted previously, I am not opposed to a selective merge if someone is willing to do it (whether through consensus or by being WP:BOLD--although, in the latter case, I suspect the merge might be quickly reverted).  I do, however, oppose simply deleting the content of this article.  Black Falcon 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT Bus stop 09:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Counterpoint WP:NOT does not refer to news articles at all. It is, rather, a section that describes certain specific types of information and articles that Wikipedia tends to discriminate against. See the talk page for WP:NOT for a discussion on that topic.  The only portion of WP:NOT that discusses news events is WP:NOT, and it only discusses them in the context of Wikipedia not being a primary, firsthand source for news reports. Since this article is not acting as a primary source, that section does not apply either. Dugwiki 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Dugwiki -- While you are correct that "WP:NOT does not refer to news articles," it does say at that page that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries." I think this leaves open the possibility that there are other classes of "indiscriminate collection(s) of information." I think this may be such a case. The Mel Gibson DUI incident article is an indiscriminate collection of information. Discrimination, in this instance, means fitting these facts into an appropriate context. The appropriate context I think is the life of Mel Gibson. Without that context, I think it can be argued, the facts are an "indiscriminate collection of information." Bus stop 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Bus stop - I'm going to partially agree with you and say that, yes, the treatment of news event related articles is one of those "up for debate" areas that hasn't yet received strong consensus one way or another. WP:NOTNEWS, for example, is a current attempt at a proposed guideline to help editors deal with exactly this sort of debate on a broader level.  Unfortunately, in the meantime, that still means we can't simply refer to WP:NOT#IINFO and say "well, I think it should apply to news events too, so it does."  That's not how the policies work.  The policy says "here are the areas where we have strong consensus", and intentionally leave open the question of whether other things should be added down the road.  Perhaps this type of article should be discriminated against? Maybe, maybe not, but at the moment WP:NOT doesn't handle it. Dugwiki 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Dugwiki -- One can't choose to be ignorant of the existence of another article. There already exists the Mel Gibson article. The question is not whether the material is sufficiently notable to deserve an article of it's own. The question is whether there should be an additional article covering similar material, but with a different emphasis. I say there is not. I find that the July 28, 2006 DWI incident, and the antisemitic comments, are all a part of Mel Gibson's life. To separate out that negative incident is to highlight it. The more recent article provides a showcase for that one incident. My argument is that it fits in with the entire life of Mel Gibson. To set up an article to focus on a negative incident is to give undue emphasis. I find that the recent DWI incident, including the utterances of antisemitic comments, has no further implications beyond those things which pertain only to Mel Gibson's life. Therefore I see no reason to project that incident out into the additional literary space of a separate article. Bus stop 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article was created because the original section that this article stemmed from outgrew the the main article and its existence there had become an example of undue weight relative to the rest of the article. This event was particularly notable given Mel Gibson's stature as an internationally recognized media force. If this article was based solely on Gibson being arrested for DUI then I would agree with others that it should be merged back into the main article. However, an event where an individual of such a stature is making antisemitic comments that recieves such worldwide coverage (and continued citation) merits having a standalone article about it. 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. -- The very existence of the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" article gives undue weight to this incident. This incident only exists in the context of Mel Gibson's life. There are no extensions of this incident outside of Mel Gibson's life. There were no individuals harmed. There were no pedestrians run over by his drunkenly driven car. There were no children irreparably harmed by hearing his antisemitic comments. There were no laws changed in California as a result of this incident. The highway patrol in California has not set up a task force to deal with drunk driving antisemitic film directors. The swallows have not decided to boycott Capistrano. This incident had no repercussions beyond and outside of the life of Mel Gibson. If this incident is of such great importance in Mel Gibson's life then it should be allotted more space in the Mel Gibson article. By your reasoning we would have to assume the DUI incident is presently being given insufficient weight in the Mel Gibson article. All weight issues only exist in relation to the life of Mel Gibson, because this incident affected nothing outside of the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If everything significant in the life of Mel Gibson received as detailed treatment as this, would it be undue weight then? I mean, are you saying the coverage is disproportionate to the rest of our coverage on him, or are you saying it doesn't deserve this level of coverage regardless of anything else? As someone who would like to see everything significant pertaining to him receive a detailed level of coverage, it seems very unrealistic to delete this and expect people to develop the content at the same rate all around. Everyking 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Everyking -- Can you tell me why there are presently two Mel Gibson articles? One is a general article on the life of Mel Gibson. The other focuses on the DWI incident of July 28, 2006. Is there a logical reason for the existence of the one that focuses on the DWI incident? If not, then the existence of the article on the DWI incident is giving undue weight to the DWI incident and consequently Mel Gibson's antisemitic utterances. It is my contention that the DWI incident can be covered adequately in the general Mel Gibson article. Bus stop 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Try to think about a lot of people in the past or in present, who are notable for our development, art, ... And they have been mentioned in several encyclopedias, but with very poor articles in Wikipedia. I can see that in this discussion quite a lot of people are capable to write long descriptions why, what for and so. But the whole story is a kind of yellow paper story, and every movement or act of some so called famous person (famous person now!!) is not important, I think. I can be sarcastic, too, but I don't want to, it's not the proper place for that. --MaNeMeBasat 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. MaNeMeBasat -- We should just have one article on Mel Gibson, not two articles on him. Bus stop 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I think where we're disagreeing here is that you feel it's a duplicate article about Mel Gibson, while I see it as one article about Mel Gibson and another about a notable DUI incident. Theroretically, you could delete the Mel Gibson article entirely and the DUI incident would still be notable enough to have an article (and vice versa, of course).  Both articles appear to be capable of supporting themselves without the other. Dugwiki 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Dugwiki -- Allegations of Mel Gibson's excessive consumption of alcohol and of his antisemitic tendencies were already noted in the Mel Gibson article prior to the July 28, 2006 incident. How is the more recent article's existence justified? Bus stop 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to Dugwiki: how could the incident be notable in itself if it protagonist were not? It is not as if it caused a war or a new law or something... --Goochelaar 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The incident is notable (irrespective of whether the person involved was Gibson or John Doe) because it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself (quoted from WP:Notability). Black Falcon 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know that bit, as everyone here. But of course it would have not been the subject etc. etc. if a notable person were not involved. On the other hand, and more to the point, every marriage, childbirth, injury etc. involving famous people is object yaddah yaddah: every newspaper, magazine and tv channel in the world covers it. But I presume nobody is suggesting we have an article for each such event. --Goochelaar 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This AfD would be much more readable if User:Bus stop would quite replying to every single delete !vote with the same damn Point.. Argyriou (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Argyriou -- It is my reasoning that this is not just a voting process. Perhaps it could be called a reasoning process. Sorry if I've jumbled anything up -- it was not my intention. Bus stop 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bus stop is responding to every "keep" vote with the same point (not to mention adding the readability-distorting boldface to the word "Point" every time). --Oakshade 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point. Oakshade -- I don't think the boldfaced word "Point" does any damage to "readability." Do you confuse the word "Point" with either the word "Delete" or the word "Keep?" How does the boldfaced word "Point" cause a deterioration in "readability, in your opinion? I'm surprised that you are getting so petty, but I guess there may be validity to your criticism, and I will try to keep an open mind. Bus stop 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is news and belongs in his article where there is already an entire section devoted to this topic. We should also not lose sight of WP:NOT.  What happens the next time he gets arrested?  Do we have a second article?  If the decision here is to keep, one must assume that anyone who has an article on this wiki and gets arrested for a similar charge should also get their own article.  This is simply not someplace we want to go. If the article needs to be split, then a whole section. or two, should be split out and not just one incident.  In the end, we really need to look at this from the position of editors writing an encyclopedia.  Does an article of this size, or detailed coverage of a single incident really need to be here?  I think not. Vegaswikian 03:12, 11 February 2007 (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.