Deletion of Mel Gibson DUI incident

Comment: 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 . 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP)

Comment: This is news and belongs in his article where there is already an entire Mel Gibson#Drug and alcohol abuse|section devoted to this topic.  We should also not lose sight of .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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  issues) that should be handled via 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BOLD)

Comment: The article is well-sourced (), , , and passes otability 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  of this article.  However, I don't think it ought to be merged as the subject-matter passes otability on its own (the sources are about the incident itself, not just about Mel Gibson generally
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:MERGE||WP:N)