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. Sr13 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson DUI incident[edit]

Mel Gibson DUI incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I can't believe people still believe it is alright to have an article on a mishap of a famous celebrity, who has no significances other than Hollywood actor.The way I see it, this article is either deleted or we create an article on the Michael Richards incident, the time Britney spears shaved her head, etc, because this article is not notable at all. Rodrigue 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meh, but he's one of the top movie stars in the world and this is widely perceived to have affected his career at some level. It's exceptionally well sourced. I don't know that it needs to be as detailed as it is but it's too much to merge back into Mel Gibson. Note that it wasn't the "mishap" but the "didn't-hafta-hap" part that was controversial. In H'wood these days a DUI per se is a rite of passage. --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Keeping for non valid argument, and it is sort of notable. Whsitchy 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, major incident not because it's a DUI of a major actor, or even the cursing: the anti-Semitism makes it notable. Multiple reliable sources, too big to merge-- I'd say this is the perfect example of something that should be split off. Abeg92contribs 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it is kind of notable. The size of the incident is in a sense what makes it notable. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nomination's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning is spurious, and an anti-Semitic episode from a person with a history of such behavior/attitudes is indeed notable enough to warrant its own article. This thing went way beyond a "mishap". Tarc 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is so notable it needs its own article rather than putting an WP:UNDUE amount by merging all this with Mel Gibson. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Mel Gibson- The nominator, User:Rodrigue, had previously nominated Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy for deletion for pretty much the same rationale. That article was kept and the various rationales given for keeping that article can be applied to keeping this one. (Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy for details.) (Note: I am NOT invoking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS here. I'm comparing two similar nominations where the same "keep" arguments apply.) Basically, this Mel Gibson incident may not be particularly important or historical and certainly doesn't have global ramifications, but it is notable and so it ought to be either kept or, perhaps, merged in with the main article on Mel Gibson. (Also, based on the several AfD nominations the nominator has done on articles similar to this, each time using the same rationale, I respectfully suggest that he look back over Wikipedia's policy on notability, specifically how "notability" is not the same thing as "importance.") --Hnsampat 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well since you just compared this with another nomination I did, then you should know I also started the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anna Nicole Smith page, and the Death of Anna Nicole Smith article was deleted for exactly the reasons I'm saying this should be deleted, so forget about your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and don't use a persons history to prove your point. Rodrigue 19:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not take offense at what I was saying. I was merely noting the similarity of a previous deletion discussion with this one, and the similiarities of the nomination rationales thereof. I do believe that the arguments put forth in the previous discussion are relevant to this one. Also, my humble suggestion that you look back over WP:N was merely meant as a friendly gesture, based on my observation that you have nominated two articles for deletion in a short period of time based on this same notability rationale and that both discussions either were or are shaping up to be snowball keeps. Certainly, the consensus favored your rationale in the case of the Death of Anna Nicole Smith article, but the consensus opposed your rationale for the article mentioned above and appears to oppose your rationale here. I would not have made the suggestion had I known you would take offense at it. Please assume good faith on my part. --Hnsampat 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Still notable, and the nominator's claim that Gibson's notability is only as an actor is a bit of a WP:POV judgement call if I may say so. Regardless, this was an event that continues to have fallout months later and continues to be invoked whenever similar incidents (such as Michael Richard's tirade) occur. Therefore it has transcended from being a single event to being an archetype. As such it is notable enough for its own article in the same way the Super Bowl article should exist. The fact this incident was cited by the media frequently during the Richards and Spears incidents cited by the nominator support the fact that it has moved into a higher echelon of notability. 23skidoo 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like it or not, Gibson is famous, notable and influencial for good or ill. His actions garnered international media attention and the attention of governments both foreign and domestic as well as various prominent NGOs. (RookZERO 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep clearly notable. JJL 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well if this event is notable, then I guess noone would object to an article on the michael richards incident being created, which is actually more notable.Unlike this event, it was referenced in popular culture (in the south park episode With apologies to Jesse Jackson), and it had a direct long term effect (the laugh factory banned the use of the n word afer the incident), and it had just as much, if not more of a media frenzy surrouding it. Rodrigue 23:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While this event can and should be covered in the Mel Gibson article, it does not merit an article of its own. If it is kept, I hope that someone eventually will be bold enough to merge. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems notable to me. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a huge story and his anti-semetic ranting made it notable far beyond the drunken driving felony. This was discussed in depth all over the world in pretty much every newspaper and there's no way it can be shunted down the memory hole here. Nick mallory 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely covered. Merging to Mel Gibson would either give it undue weight in the parent article, or require removing sourced information in order to fit it there. cab 01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sounding obvious: moving the Undue Weight elsewhere doesn't get rid of the Undue Weight, it just moves it elsewhere. It doesn't matter where we go in altogether excessive detail. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject" --- i.e. the Mel Gibson article should not give undue weight to this specific incident. However, this is an article about the incident. If you think we should not have an article about the incident at all (e.g. for WP:BLP concerns or another reason), then say so, but avoiding undue weight doesn't mean we should shorten standalone articles in order that their length is proportional to other stuff. I don't see a particular problem with "excessive detail" where said details are well-sourced, either. cab 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I see merger as being more of a clutter problem than an undue weight problem, but basically I agree with cab's rationale. JamesMLane t c 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, clutter is more of an editing/consensus issue, but undue weight is policy. --Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What I don't understand is why do peope suddenly support the article so much, wasn't the previous AFD result No consensus? I don't know if people just changed there minds or because time has past, but what is with the sudden agreement. Rodrigue 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Drunkdrivercruft. We're not a news portal. Excessively detailed article of something that people will forget completely in a few years tops. The possible merge-worthy material is just about covered in, oh, the first sentence of the article (and it's already covered to that extent in the main article). This is exactly why we're going to hell if all we demand is "sources" and we don't consider "notability" or, good heavens, "why would anyone write a separate article about this in the first place". Please, we're allowed to use common sense in determining what kind of topics are appropriate for the article, not just the fact that the sources exist and we can write an article. We're supposed to look at the big picture. Main article does. This article doesn't. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if kept, please keep it on the condition that it's turned into a Featured Article over the next few months. You know, to tell the world of our... direction. =) (Seriously, though, can you imagine this as a FA?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per the other keep votes, but to specifically refute what wwwwolf has just said, I think it's interesting to note that what is neat about wikipedia, and unique as an encyclopedia, is that we are able to have GOOD VERIFIABLE and SOURCED articles in an encyclopedia format that are not constricted. What I mean is, a traditional print encyclopedia could never keep something like this and many other articles we keep just because of the restrictions of cost/paper/size of a traditional print encyclopedia. However, in ten years, this, because of the anti-semitism and the notability of the person in it, will still be in public memory, and some people will want to look this up with verifiable sources and see "what happened." Things like "the time brittany shaved her head," as someone pointed out earlier, more than likely will not be in the public memory in ten years, or even two. That is what seperates this article as something that is notable and keepable, and something that is 'tabloid-esque' or 'a news feed.' As wwwwolf says, we are "allowed to use common sense." Given that, my common sense tells me that this is something that, as stands with proper sources, should definitely be kept. Barsportsunlimited 00:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the point. The point is this: In 10 years, what do people want to hear about this incident? They probably don't want to hear anything at all apart of what's already in the main article: A few really concise, inconvenient but sourced and verified details. That's all that really matters in the end, and that's the common sense part. I'm not disputing the fact that concise details can be there; I'm just saying this level of detail is altogether too excessive. Also, what is more likely: In ten years, when people discuss anti-semitism and it's influence, they bring up a) one popular (at the time) German politician who apparently did something very nasty to Jews in early 1940s while reportedly practising abstinence from alcohol apart of a few reported celebratory occasions, or b) some American actor (popularity highly debated, though generally firmly on positive side) who got a bit drunk in mid-2000s - okay, according to the main article, not really just in an isolated case? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is permanent. We don't judge the suitability of a subject for inclusion based on speculation about how it might be regarded in the future; only past and present matter. Anyway, logically, if people in the future don't care, they don't have to read it, but we can assume at least a few people will find it interesting no matter how much time passes, and they will be informed about it thanks to our present efforts. The argument is like "I don't care--leave the book on the shelf" vs. "I don't care--throw the book in the fire". There are bits of history from centuries and millennia ago that would be considered utterly unimportant to the vast majority of people, but to some people with a specific interest in the subject the stuff is invaluable historical detail. That's a much bigger picture than "ten years down the road nobody will care". Everyking 10:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The big issue isn't "why would anyone care about this in 10 years", but "why would anyone care about this in this level of detail at any point of time, let alone in 10 years when everyone's probably forgotten this". I'm not saying "throw the book in the fire". I'm saying "it's already in the book, so why discuss it further - there's better books for that thing". I'm not saying the topic isn't worth discussing, I'm just saying this isn't worth an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wwwwolf, I'm afraid you're doing the same thing that the nominator did, which is confuse "notability" with "importance." This incident may not be important in the long run, but it's certainly notable. (The "Chappaquiddick incident" involving Ted Kennedy is not particularly important today, but it's still notable. Certainly, Chappaquiddick is a bit more notable because it involved someone's death, but you see my point, no?) --Hnsampat 11:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And people confuse my delete !vote with "No, you may not discuss it anywhere at all, period", which isn't my intention at all. I see the point, and have seen it previously - but I still don't think this warrants an article. Like I implied, notability is not in question; it definitely warrants a mention in the main article. Yet, there's the plain fact that no one has made a convincing case on why this warrants an article of its own and why such extended discussion is warranted at all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the incident may be notable (or perhaps notorious) incident in the life of Mel Gibson, but is is encyclopaedic? I think not; the material should certainly be covered in the main article on him (and I think it is). It is possible there is material in this that ought to be merged to the main article, but that is long enough already, and merely pasting in this article would unbalance it. On the whole, I think it should be deleted. If retained the abbreviation in the title should be expanded, as DUI is meaningless east of the Atlantic, where we talk of drunken drivers. Peterkingiron 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the event is still notable and erasure reasons sound too much like wp:dontlikeit yuckfoo 01:36, 4 June 2007 (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.