Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident (3nd nomination)


 * 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. Courcelles 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson DUI incident
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnecessary POV fork with massive WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE problems. Consensus seems to have rejected this kind of article previously- see, for example, Dick Cheney's health. Whisky drinker &#124;  HJ's sock   23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow close as keep Dick Cheney's health is not an incident -- this is an incident that received massive coverage, and continues to be heavily referenced to this day. I would agree, though, that more should be written about it in the main article. IronDuke  00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. On the one hand, it does seem to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, it's well sourced. Do we have any other articles about a single DUI incident? I couldn't find any (yeah, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but still). Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not a standard WP topic. However, if it had only been a run of the mill DUI, it probably wouldn't even merit a mention in the main article. It's the remarks made during it that are notable. IronDuke  16:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait...this is the "3nd" nomination? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's newspeak! Can we change it or would that screw up the afd process? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I created this page four years ago, and it was one of the first successful examples of breaking out a controversial section of a larger page. If we have to merge all this back into Mel Gibson, it clutters it up, and it also makes it difficult for us to work together the next time he shoots himself in the foot. Keep the regular stuff in the main bio page, and the breaking news or controversial stuff in subpages, as explained further in Summary style. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So it should stay just because it's been here for four years? Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It still is relevant and is still referenced in the media, it has become an iconic moment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced, relevant, and, like has already been pointed out, is still frequently mentioned in the media years later. Sky83 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 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.