Deletion of Mel Gibson DUI incident (2nd nomination)

Comment: please see .  Keeping for non valid argument, and it is sort of notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: The nomination's  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: Still notable, and the nominator's claim that Gibson's notability is only as an actor is a bit of a  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Well, clutter is more of an editing/consensus issue, but |undue weight is policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)