Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 for deletion, default to keep. The article does not irremediably violate our core policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and arguably now WP:BLP), which means that a deletion unsupported by a consensus is not admissible. Reasonable editors can disagree (and have done so here) about the application of policies such as WP:NOTNEWS or WP:MEMORIAL to this article, so I also can't determine which side is deemed to have consensus on the basis of the strength of its arguments.

Even though there's no consensus to delete, however, there is a consensus (or a near consensus) that this topic does not deserve an article of its own. Accordingly, I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence of this discussion.  Sandstein  20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Russert tributes

The article was renamed on 06:07, 21 June 2008 to Reaction to Tim Russert's death‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyabbott (talk • contribs)
Tim Russert tributes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is recentism, and seems more like a memorial than a daughter article for encyclopedic content. A few prominent "tributes" (say, for example, comments from George W. Bush, and the extensive news coverage offered by competing news organizations) can be mentioned in the main Tim Russert article to demonstrate that he had a huge impact on American journalism and politics, but we don't need to have an entire article that details every condolence offered after his death. In the long run, no one's going to care about this minutiae, and, even though some might be interested in the information now, it's not the kind of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. (See also my comment dated 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) on the talk page of the article.) -- tariqabjotu 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Alternatively, merge back to Tim Russert. The article was created to unclutter the Tim Russert page and therefore should not be considered independent of that article. Whether or not this much coverage of tributes to Russert is warranted is a content question to be nutted out on this and the main article's talk pages, not AFD. Debate 木 07:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage is voluminous and unlike other journalists in volume; compare Peter Jennings, for example. The nominators statement about an article "that details every condolence offered after his death" is pure hyperbole. Eyabbott (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite notable due to press coverage. Everyking (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Tim Russert. We don't need to have an exhaustive list of tributes (akin to an "...in popular culture" article), but a brief section within the main article addressing reactions to his death is appropriate. I don't think we need an entire article for just this topic, but nuking it outright is not the appropriate solution. Horologium (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be recent coverage, but it is a huge amount of coverage. It is notable and not likely to change in the future. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than the coverage of Princess Diana or Ronald Reagan, neither of whom get a 'tributes' article on Wikipedia? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify anybody who wants an article on Russert's tributes but not on tributes for people who received even more of them? This is a ridiculous argument. Everyking (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not an encyclopedic article - WP:NOT a memorial. Material is referenced, and appropriate to sit in the parent article (Tim Russert). Neıl 龱 11:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reactions to this person's death do seem to have been unusual and worthy of note on Tim Russert, probably with a bit of trimming as User:Tariqabjotu mentions. Trim-and-merging it back to a section in the main article seems best to me. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge plenty of references for a decent section within the Tim Russert article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, eventual delete. Clearly Tim Russert, his passing, and tributes related to it, are notable now. I agree with the deletion nominator that this is recentism. I also agree with commentators above that some degree of merging and pruning is currently appropriate. I strongly suspect that we will come back in a few months time and decide that a small subset of these tributes bear mentioning in the Tim Russert article, and many others are no longer notable. If it has not by then already been done, merging the content from here and deleting the subarticle with this name will likely be noncontroversial. In the meanwhile, separating this content which would overwhelm the main article, but is referenced and notable at the present time and likely to be of interest to many readers, feels like sound editorial judgement. Recommend a closure of "no consensus" or "keep for now", without prejudice to renominating later. Martinp (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once notable is always notable. Everyking (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Your comment prompted me to reread WP:NOTABLE. I don't buy the argument. We do say notability is not temporary, which I think means the "general conditions for notability" once met remain met, since they are focused on the existence of reliable independent sources. What this does not encompass is the latitude of editorial judgement, in that routinely things that felt like a big deal are much less notable (in the colloquial sense) later on and tend to be edited out. Our policy does immediately say that the general criteria only indicate a presumption of notability, and we all know consensus can change. If this article is kept now, I would not at all be surprised if a few months from now it is silently whittled down and merged and/or deleted, not due to dastardly consensus-violators skulking in the the biushes until peoples' attention goes elsewhere, but by natural evolution of editorial judgement. Anyway, soapbox mode off. Martinp (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge My sympathy and condolences to Tim Russert's friends and family. However Wikipedia is not a memorial. A look at Wikipedia coverage of much more prominent people who died (Ronald Reagan, Princess Diana) will show that they don't have 'tribute' pages. Wikipedia is not a repository for all the information in the world - some of it belongs elsewhere and memorials like this are exactly the kind of thing that belongs elsewhere. We don't have Wikipedia articles on 9/11 victims (unless notable in some other way) for exactly that reason. Incidentally notability is not temporary so if this isn't going to be notable in a month then it isn't notable now.
The level of coverage in the Tim Russert article as it is now is probably appropriate. If this article were to be simply redirected to the main article that would be fine. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Nakon 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the most notable of these with the main article and delete this one. I agree WP:NOT a memorial. It would be interesting to add to the main article a (sourced) discussion as to why Russert's death had such a wide impact when his career was much shorter than that of, say, Jim McKay whose death went virtually unnoticed. 23skidoo (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a memorial. What next - tribute pages for every dead celeb, TV personality, etc? ukexpat (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepComment. (My actual !vote is below.) The coverage/tributes that have been devoted to Russert's death have been notable on their own, and the section in the main article was becoming unwieldy. I feel deleting because a person doesn't like this kind of article is a bad idea. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since Wikipedia is not a memorial. Alternatively, Smerge (selectively merge) a few of the better statements about his merit or significance by world leaders to his bio article, to provide context on his importance. The nonstop coverage has bordered on Mourning sickness since he is no more dead and no more missed by his friends and family than thousands of other people who die every week. Edison (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not intended as a "memorial", but rather as a way of addressing the extraordinary coverage of his death. Many people here are using "not a memorial" as a reason for deletion, when the article was not intended as a memorial of any kind. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge of key points to the main article. While it's obvious there was quite a lot of support of Russert shown after his death, a "tributes" article is kind of taking our coverage too far. I think this would be more effective if included in the main article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That ignores the problem that led to the creation of the TRt article in the first place. The article was becoming cluttered with all the tributes/memorials/responses to his death. This is the best solution, at least for now. Nothing written here has yet refuted that. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of tributes currently in the main article is more than enough. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time: it's not about the number of tributes, it's about the notability of the fact that there has been an unprecedented outpouring of coverage (in the form of media coverage, tributes, memorials, and official statements) of this death. I really wish people would stop with the red herring arguments. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S. Dean, I don't think anyone here disagrees that this man's death has drawn statements from a surprising number of high-ranking or well-known figures. The point is that an entire article is not needed to make that point. -- tariqabjotu 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge After someone dies there is a flurry of activity on their article. The argument that the article had become to cluttered is a bad one, considering he died less than a week ago. It's high profile and morbidly exciting right now, but in a few weeks the excitement surrounding this article will wane and experienced editors will pare down the quotes about his death to a reasonable number. Undoubtedly, a link to Wikiquote for the full list of tributes will be added as well. Finally, if this is kept it sets a bad precedent for future "Tributes to ..." articles for both past and future deaths. AniMate 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to merge -- there is already a lengthy description of tributes and the effect on the media in Russert's main article. Overall this is a mawkish and embarrassing article. Note that the article should be named "Tribute to Tim Russert," (without the 's' in "Tributes" because it is primarily a tribute to him. The large majority of it is not about the tributes at all, but just quotes from various tributes to honor their subject. Those portions that actually are about the tributes (rather than simply using the tributes as an excuse to proffer quotes about Russert) have little or no sourcing. Fletcher (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I agree that WP:RECENT applies to this. I don't think that "an unprecedented outpouring of coverage" is notable, nor is it particularly surprising that Tim Russert's fellow journalists would use news time to speak about one of their own during a time of shock and sorrow. As Fletcher points out, some of the more memorable tributes are included in the main article. Add whatever you think is important, but we don't need articles about the praise that is inevitably given for beloved celebrities. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge into Tim Russert, we're not a memorial but there's not anything inherently unencyclopedic about some mention of the tributes either. Thanks, Naerii - Talk 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Tim Russert, per above. The "delete and merge" rationale given above makes the GFDL cry, by the way. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Tim Russert and edit down. Much of what it here and what is in Tim Russert is repetitive. --Crunch (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Illegal Content Fork (WP:CFORK) Article is not an encyclopedic topic. Needs to be merged with Tim Russert. Everyone just have some patience and work out a consensus in the Tim Russert article. I don't know of anyone who wants to have a long, extended tribute section that overwhelms the article. Most people either want a tribute section or nothing. We can work on that and not have a content fork. Presumptive (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To sum up: we can't vote "no", but we can vote "yes" in any language we like? Everyking (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the topic could be broadened a bit and might be more acceptable to those who feel it's unencyclopedic if it were instead titled "reactions to the death of Tim Russert". Obviously the reactions are mostly or entirely tributes, but it would have less of a "memorial" feel. Everyking (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be acceptable to me. It's not about giving it the right feel, but about having quality articles! And the subject matter is just not notable or significant to merit an article: when someone dies, people react, and if a public figure dies, other public figures react to express their grief and condolences. There's no reason to compile and catalog every such expression. Fletcher (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming something of a farce.Those who wish to have this deleted aren't even interested in solving the underlying problem that led me to create the page: the tributes section of the main article was becoming long and cluttered. I tried to improve the encyclopedia by creating a stand-alone article for the tributes or "reactions" to Russert's death. Then, when Everyking tries to come up with a viable alternative to deletion, Fletcher hops in to say no, that the only acceptable alternative is straight deletion. If positions are that hardened, what's the point of this discussion? I'm very disappointed that it appears that those vying for deletion (or the semantically different, but practically identical "merging") are not even willing to consider alternative solutions. Very disappointing, indeed. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm obviously opening myself up for a world of hurt but, can you please explain why you feel that merge is "semantically different, but practically identical" to deletion? And why you feel those that "voted" merge are "not even willing to consider alternative solutions"? Because, I thought by saying merge I was considering an alternative solution to deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's "practically identical" because to "merge" the articles, the article in question must be deleted, and then the section on the tributes will be vastly pared down. How is that -- for practical purposes -- any different than simply deleting the article? Working for an alternative would include things like renaming the current article, or perhaps restructuring it in some way that makes it less like a "memorial" for those who view it that way currently. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you didn't mean it but, the "not even considering" thing came across like you were accusing me (and others). Merging to me is the prefered option because it means keeping some of the content of this article (but, ensuring it is in the correct place) as opposed to deleting it and losing everything. I'm sorry you look at it differently but, would appreciate yourself and others not making such generalised statements in future (admittedly I may have taken it more personally than it was meant). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created so that there could still be a place to document the extensive coverage of Russert's death, while keeping the main article free from clutter. To trim and merge is practically speaking, no different than just deleting it. This has been my point all along. The "mergers" and "deleters" aren't willing to try to reach a compromise on the existence of some type of article documenting the extensive response to Russert's death. That response is notable in itself, simply because of it's size and scope. Compare this reaction to the reaction at Jennings' death. It's without precedent, which makes the reaction itself notable, and worthy of an article, instead of an overlong section in the main article. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S. Dean Jameson, you are I think under the misapprehension that everyone here agrees with you that all the quotes currently in this article need to be preserved. I don't believe that is the case. Even if the number of tributes is unprecedented, we can report that by writing "an unprecedented number of tributes was made", not by quoting each one of them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to deal with a long and cluttered main article section would be to trim it down to size, keeping a sampling of what people said about Russert while noting the coverage was more extensive. So my underlying disagreement is that most of the subject matter doesn't belong on Wikipedia; while the tributes are testament to Russert's notability, they are not themselves notable and can be summarized on the main article. Fletcher (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're cutting this too fine, Fletcher. The words themselves may or may not be notable - some are more than others perhaps - but the fact that they were said, by such a wide range of notable people, in considerably more than a perfunctory way, is certainly notable and to not include the statements is unnecessarily narrow. I also note that we're not including each one of them as been implied above. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence the tributes are notable. As I've said, they confer notability on Russert but not themselves. Expressions of condolences are common and unremarkable, and it's to be expected that the death of a highly prominent person would garner condolences from many other prominent people. As WP is not a memorial site or a directory, we don't create compilations of tributes any time a notable person dies. But this is just my opinion. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps there is something notable about these tributes. This article does nothing to prove it. It aptly describes the tributes by quoting extensively from them, but has no analysis or independent sourcing explaining their significance. Fletcher (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event, much coverage - this page isn't a memorial, it is reporting of a phenomenon that occurred, that is of note. I agree with Dean Jameson's points. Tvoz/talk 17:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Celebrities, newscasters, and the POTUS paying their wishes? - notable enough. miranda 18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the best way to keep this stuff from cluttering up the main article. In a few months, when this is no longer topical, we can revisit and perhaps delete. john k (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most definitely recentism. Merge what will be important a year from now (i.e. quotes from 3-4 people) into the main article and then delete this. I know he was deeply respected but this is very Amerocentric. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but when did "Amerocentric" become a reason for article deletion? There are hundreds, no- thousands, of articles that thrive that have exactly 0% to do with America, and they aren't challenged on that basis. Tvoz/talk 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You completely ignored the remainder of Woohookitty's statement. -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't - recentism is certainly a reasonable rationale, but Amerocentric is not, in my view, and I said so. If it was just a gratuitous comment, it had no place here. Tvoz/talk 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not a "gratuitous comment" and there was zero reason to think that was case. You commented on one part of the comment, and ignored the rest. If you think Woohookitty's delete statement based on the other points is okay, why does the "Amerocentric" piece matter anyway? -- tariqabjotu 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you complained that it was nothing more than a memorial, then when I moved it to a more appropriate article name, you moved it back. I'd like all arguing for deletion (or "merging") to note that one side is trying to work for an amicable solution, while the other is simply digging into their position without consideration of compromise. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tariq, I'm not here to reply to everything that everyone says, but I saw a comment that appeared to be an irrelevant point to the discussion, so I said so. I commented at first on the part of the objection that seemed out of process to me - "Amerocentric" not being a valid reason for delete in my view. To unpack: I am asking whoever closes this discussion to not take "Amerocentric" into consideration because I believe it is not a valid cause. If "Amerocentric" was gratuitous, then it should not have been here. If it was not gratuitous, as you say, then I say again that it is not a valid reason for deletion. Continuing: I did not, at first, comment on "recentism" because although I don't agree with the argument, I do think it is a valid thing to raise. Obviously I don't agree with Woohoo's position, which is why I had previously stated my own. To flesh it out: we regularly include material about recent events. Whether we think of ourselves as a news source or not, people do come here for information, and I don't think that's something we can ignore. The phenomenon of the response to the death was surprising and seems to be significant, and I believe we should have a place for people to learn more about it. Along those lines, I think that Dean's change of title was a helpful edit that I support. Whether the article ultimately will pass the test of time is of course unknown, and the subject can be re-visited sometime down the road if editors have a problem with it later on. But for now I think the 'recentism' argument should be set aside. Further, WP:RECENT is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it can be considered, but it's hardly revolutionary to ignore it, and it itself says "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". So, I did not particularly feel the need to spell all of this out in responding to Woohoo's point, but since you asked, I have. Hope this clarifies. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Tariq took it upon himself to move the article back to the improperly titled one. It makes the red herring argument that it's only a memorial more cogent if it's titled "Tim Russert tributes", I guess. It's sad that we can't work together to make the article better, instead of simply digging in the trenches, and thwarting even attempts to smooth out the issues that some have raised for deletion (or "merging"). S. Dean Jameson (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is indeed a red herring, as those people arguing for deletion have objected to the substance and notability of the article, not what it's titled. For all your talk of amicable resolutions and compromise, you appear unwilling to make an actual compromise on the content. Further, Tariq's edit summary claimed he objected to your "move in the midst of AfD." I don't know if he was right or wrong to revert you, but I too found it surprising that an article would be moved before its AfD was resolved. I'm not sure what the protocol is. But to say he had an ulterior motive and actually wanted the "Tributes" title back because that makes it easier to delete is to say he was lying in his edit summary. So you are not compromising and assuming bad faith on the part of editors who disagree with you. Please, try to practice what you preach. Fletcher (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S. Dean, my suggestion that the article is nothing more than a memorial has nothing to do with the name of the article, and I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the other people's deletes on this matter do. -- tariqabjotu 06:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Believe what you want about my motives. Everything I've done thus far in the mainspace has been to try to make the project better. I'm very unclear how deleting this article (and reverting to an improperly titled version) does that, but if an argument can be made that it does better the project, I'm open to hearing it. And the only red herring here is being presented by those claiming this was only created to serve as some kind of memorial to Russert. I won't accuse someone of assuming bad faith, though, as that seems unfair. I believe that Tariq thinks that deleting this article will somehow better the project. It's simply my contention that his thought processes--and yours, for that matter--are completely wrong-headed, and would actually do harm (however slight) to the project. That's why I argue so vigorously--and object so strongly to the red herrings being flopped around--against deletion of this article. There's just no convincing evidence that deleting the article improves the project in any way. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break after renaming article and adding new section

  • Comment - there's been significant criticism about the voluminous amount of coverage this has received; I've renamed the article Reaction to Tim Russert's death‎ and added a section Criticisms of media coverage and to the intro. This article is fully notable and is no way a "memorial article". Eyabbott (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this article were to somehow survive, then yes, it should be at something along the lines of "Reactions to Tim Russert's death", but this has nothing to do with my deletion rationale. You are attempting to address the concerns of delete and oppose voters by (a) doing something irrelevant to their points (moving the article; everyone here seems to be addressing its content) and (b) reinforcing our points (by adding even more information, rather than cutting down on the excess information in the article). But, fine; it doesn't matter. The article will likely be deleted in a few days anyway and it doesn't matter from where it's deleted. However, I do hope in the meantime you can take a long enough break from shouting, making unfounded WP:OWN claims, and adding more clutter to the article to read my move rationales and my comment on the talk page (not just only half of them, like you seem to do) and fix the situation. -- tariqabjotu 06:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've moved the article. Okay. All of the delete/merge arguments are still valid. I've reread this entire debate, and I don't think that a simple name change invalidates anyone's arguments. To me AfDs are about content not titles, but if you want to argue otherwise, please feel free. AniMate 07:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This section was very necessary to maintain WP:NPOV, thanks for adding it. I added commentary from a Washington Post writer as well criticizing the volume of coverage.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is exactly the sort of recentism that WP:NOT#NEWS is intended to keep out of Wikipedia. And creating articles on unencyclopedic subjects is not the way to stop people adding unencyclopedic information to other articles - we have mechanisms such as recent changes patrol, semi-protection and protection for that, depending on how serious the problem is. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The incredible amount of media coverage of this event is notable and by definition easily referenced and citeable. The article could use some cleanup but it's size makes merging back into the parent article counter productive.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, keep. This does, in fact, invalidate the red herring argument that this article is some kind of "memorial." How can that still be cogently argued? The way the article is currently constructed, it's very clear that the article is (and was) intended to be about the phenomena of the massive coverage that Russert's death received. It's becoming very apparent that there is not going to be consensus here to delete, and it's my understanding (per my reading of the rules of AfD) that this means the article is kept. Shouldn't we all start working toward making the article better now, instead of arguing with each other about whether it belongs? S. Dean Jameson (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to add more than one "keep" for yourself. In my reading of the article is it most definitely a memorial or tribute page, because there is very little about the tributes that analyzes or explains their significance, but rather we have mostly quotations of people giving their condolences. We should be able to summarize the condolences on Russert's page. To quote many of them, even though they are all saying pretty much the same thing, is to imply they are important, but that importance needs to be explained and supported with other sources. I do however tip my hat to Eyabbott for adding a media criticism section, which does finally contribute to the article's notability. Nevertheless, the article is still very lopsided in favor of sappy tributes, and I'm doubtful there is enough media analysis to support a full article. The media criticism section should definitely be saved and merged under Tributes in Tim Russert. Fletcher (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you say "delete" (well, "merge", but it's the exact same thing) even in the face of growing proof that your concerns are addressed, and that the subject of the article is, in fact, notable of itself, and not just as part of Russert's article? If a sub-section on "Media criticism of the reaction to Russert's death" were included in the main article, that would simply exacerbate the problem I initially created the article to fix! This "debate" is almost taking on something of a surreal quality. Is there nothing that can move you off your position that this article must not remain part of the project? S. Dean Jameson 14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you weren't talking to me, but in response to your question in the last sentence, I'm going to have to say no. A lot of media sources and people (mostly American, might I add) commented on this... okay, we get; adding more information on that is not going to change anything. I was aware of that before I presented my position.
The problem is that you're trying so hard to expand something that can be stated in a few paragraphs into an entire article because you think that is what demonstrates notability. It doesn't, and it doesn't matter what "health professionals" (who, for some reason, have a section in this article) say, or that there was media coverage of the Challenger explosion. We don't need to mention Obama and McCain each three times, including precisely what they said about Russert and the manner in which they spoke to each other at his funeral. The fact that there was media criticism or analysis means very little; the media analyzes everything. And yet you have devoted space in the article for all this content -- and more -- to give the impression there's this huge wealth of information on this subject that must be included somewhere on Wikipedia. There isn't, and it doesn't. Merging this article into Tim Russert does not mean including every word of the current vision and putting in the article. It means cutting the article down to size, removing trivial details and full quotes that really are just taking up space so you can say "wow! look how long this article is; the subject must be notable!" and putting the rest in Russert's own article, where it belongs. That is still possible, and always will be. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying what most of us already knew: you're intent on deleting this, no matter what evidence is presented to you that the reaction of the media, politicos, and others is in itself a notable occurence (much like it was after the VT massacre). It's illuminating if only because it brings to light what I'm sure most of us suspected: your position is your position, no matter the facts we bring to light that contradict it. As such, I appreciate having that out there, and I'll continue the deletion/inclusion discussion with others who are less-hardened in their position. Thanks, S. Dean Jameson 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If something's not notable, it's not notable. You can't make something notable. I, for example, am not notable (in the Wikipedia context). Even if I write 20,000 words about myself, spending inordinate amounts of space on the most "notable" events in my life, that doesn't make me notable. This is what you're doing here. You're trying to take what I believe is a non-notable subject and make it notable. You are not presenting me with new information that can change my opinion; you are simply taking what I already knew -- that this was widely covered by the media and certain celebrities and figures -- and putting that in the article ad nauseum. Of course I'm not going to change my stance (as nefarious as you make me sound by doing that); my conclusion that the topic is not notable enough to have its own article did not come from lack of information, but rather from my survey of all the relevant basic information. You will be unable to sway me because you are providing me with nothing new. I see you have a problem with people disagreeing with you, though, so I'll leave you be for now. -- tariqabjotu 22:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I'm not angry in the least, though you seem to be, especially at the talk page. And neither I, nor anyone else is trying to "make" this topic notable. It is notable, and we're attempting to get you (and a few others) to see that. You've refused to, and stated categorically that you won't change your view no matter what evidence of notability is put forward. That's fine, though not very helpful. S. Dean Jameson 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is you're criticizing me for not wanting to change my position, when you also aren't willing to change yours. The difference is that I'm not expecting you to. Notability is not objective. Obviously, our standards for what makes a topic notable enough to have its own article are different -- and that's fine. However, given the number of people in support of deleting or merging this article (in comparison to those in favor of keeping it), my standard is clearly more in line with the community's as a whole. Also, please stop saying I'm "angry" as you have said in the last four comments on this subject; this is clearly an attempt to make me angry, and it's not working. -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, there are 10 or 11 "keeps", around the same "merges" and 9 or 10 "deletes." There's no consensus there, and it won't be deleted without consensus. The sooner you acknowledge that, the better off we'll all be. There's no consensus here at all, and that defaults to "keep." S. Dean Jameson 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now removed nearly all the actual text of the many tributes, in favor of simply discussing the fact that there was so much coverage/tributes. Re-read the article, and let me know if you feel that the reworking addresses any of your concerns. S. Dean Jameson 14:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - recentism, violates WP:NOTNEWS. True, a respected figure unexpectedly died and, quite naturally, there was an outpouring of grief from his media and political friends for a few days. But that's not encyclopedic material, I'm afraid to say. No one will care in a year or, for that matter, a month. Biruitorul Talk 17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not bring it up for review in a year or a month if you're right? Or perhaps there wil be more analysis of the phenomenon as the months go by? We don't know, do we. Now that the renamed article includes a section of critical commentary regarding the subject it certainly cannot be accused of being a memorial, and it seems to be developing as an article. No compelling arguments have been given for this rush to delete. Tvoz/talk 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful "more analysis" will follow, though I suppose you are free to save the article on your hard disk and try recreating it then. And yes, some people expressed disapproval of the broad coverage, as might be expected - but again, this is just a short burst of opinions (already subsided), not something expected to have lasting impact (and again, if it does, we can recreate then). Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or in the alternative, given that there's clearly no consensus to delete it, those of us who are actually working on the article can continue to do so, in an attempt to improve it. And those who are fighting to delete it for some reason can continue to do so as well. S. Dean Jameson 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Factual point A vote of both merge and delete indicate people who do NOT want this article to exist. That actually means there is (currently) a two-to-one majority in favour of not having this article in Wikipedia.
And you know what, DJ? That's STILL not consensus to delete. Period. It's ironic that I was castigated for calling out the "merge" votes as simply "deletes" in disguise, but now that it fits the needs of those wanting deletion, they're happy to do the same. No consensus here, sorry. S. Dean Jameson 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two to one is an easy consensus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus != unanimity. Fletcher (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Utterly notable figure, and utterly notable fork. It's too large already to merge into Russert's page. rootology (T) 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Pertinent information should be merged into the Tim Russert article. It doesn't appear to be encyclopedic to have a completely different article related to reactions to his death. Qaddosh|contribstalk 06:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keeping this article would set a terrible precedent. While I enjoyed watching Russert, this is completely over the top, and reeks of fanboyism. A former President of the United States died a year and a half ago and do we have a Reaction to Gerald Ford's death article? No and rightfully so. Yet WP:English has an article dedicated to the reaction of the death of a newscaster. This is a waste of bandwidth and I'm sure if Tim were alive today he would be embarrassed by this. --Tocino 07:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I dont recall there being any criticism of the amount of media coverage of Ford's death or an inordinate amount of coverage, so you are correct, an article on the reaction doesn't seem appropriate. The Newseum didn't even think the coverage significant enough to archive the newspaper front pages that day. They did think Russert's coverage worth archiving. As they did the Virginia Tech massacre, the release of the Mitchell Report, and Hurricane Katrina.
      • Actually, they did. There probably wasn't criticism of the amount of coverage because the amount of coverage was appropriate given he was a former president rather than a journalist. -- tariqabjotu 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, hard to believe that this one is still going on. I'm sure that the final decision will be "no consensus", default to keep, as rendered by whichever unfortunate administrator gets the assignment. I hope that whoever does take this will comment on WP:MEMORIAL in announcing the decision. Wikipedia's ban on memorials is one of its better policies; in effect, it says that nobody, no matter how "notable", rates a separate article about the reaction to their death. Whether someone is "utterly notable" is a moot point if all memorials are barred. If the decision is "keep", please don't make it for a wishy-washy reason like "no consensus". Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event and plenty of coverage. Whether it will be notable in the future is questionable, but it merits an article at this point in time. Enigma message 18:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event that has received plenty of coverage. The new article seems encyclopedic. Finally, WP:RECENT is just an essay, and not a reason for deletion. 5:15 18:46, 23 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Russert_tributes&oldid=1142608126"