Talk:Reaction to Tim Russert's death

Bad idea
I understand the reasoning behind this, but this article strikes me as unnecessary. When someone famous dies their article is heavily edited. Once some time has passed, the tribute section of Russert's article will be trimmed down to Wikipedia standards. I can't imagine there are any other articles just about reactions/tributes to someone's death.--Ani Mate 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was simply trying to find a good solution to what was becoming an unwieldy section that was beginning to clutter the article, in my view. If you feel it's unnecessary, do you have a different solution you think might work better? S. Dean Jameson (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. We correctly deleted tributes to 9/11 victims on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a memorial. This should go too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you propose we solve the problem of clutter in the main article then? S. Dean Jameson (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that we simply remove it. Plenty more significant people get neither long sections nor whole articles on the tributes at their deaths. We may have to wait a few days until the fuss has died down. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: the outpouring of grief (and thus, memorials) at Russert's death has been quite unprecedented, especially for a television news figure. We can't simply ignore that, but neither can we let a section of the article on those tributes/grief come to so dominate the article as to overshadow the rest of it. I don't see simply deleting the section as a viable option. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think in a couple of days we'll be able to get this deleted. Leaving it for now is probably the best strategy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think this can be solved by not putting full quotes in the main article. I understand that the point should be made that there was a surprising amount of grief given this man was just a journalist, but that message could be conveyed without saying precisely what individuals said. For example...


 * Politicians who had faced him in presidential debates and on Meet the Press also commented on his death. President George W. Bush praised him as "a tough and hardworking newsman. He was always well-informed and thorough in his interviews. And he was as gregarious off the set as he was prepared on it." Former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton released a joint statement saying: "Tim had a love of public service and a dedication to journalism that rightfully earned him the respect and admiration of not only his colleagues but also those of us who had the privilege to go toe to toe with him."


 * "Sen. John McCain said: 'Tim Russert was at the top of his profession. He was a man of honesty and integrity. He was hard, but he was always fair.' Sen. Barack Obama said: 'I've known Tim Russert since I first spoke to the convention in 2004. He was somebody who over time I came to consider not only a journalist but a friend. There wasn't a better interviewer in television nor a more thoughtful analyst of our politics, and he was also one of the finest men I knew.'"


 * ... can be reduced to...


 * "Politicians who had faced him in presidential debates and on Meet the Press, including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama, also commented on his death."


 * (presuming, of course, that all of them have been on Meet the Press or otherwise encountered them in presidential debates). --  tariq abjotu  06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Quotations belong in Wikiquotes. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"....also commented on his death"? How utterly, utterly non-informative. Eyabbott (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Wikipedia is about providing reliable, sourced and verified information to the world, "the sum of all human knowledge" as Jimmy Wales put it, which means, that this article must stay. The outpouring of tributes was unprecedented for a newsreader. But this is information, and informative information, because it lets us know that Tim Russert was respected and value by a large number people, Democrats/Republicans, Liberal/Conservative, Black/White, Man/Woman, and that is something that is important to know and to be known Benny45boy (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No! Wikipedia is not "the sum of all human knowledge". It is explicitly written as a Wikipedia policy that there are some kinds of information that don't belong here. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE for more information. Specifically mentioned are 'transitory news events'. If something is not notable in the long run then it is not notable for Wikipedia purposes at all.

Hope
I hope this is not a sneaky way to get the information deleted. One first splits it off the article. Then they kill the new article. If so, very unethical. If there is ever a AFD, then this warning should be mentioned in the AFD. Presumptive (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the often sick game of Wikipedia. Eyabbott (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't split the article off from the main one, and I was against doing so. Please take your paranoia elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I split it, in what I felt was the best interest of the main article. I am now opposing deletion of this article, at the AfD nomination. I had no "sneaky" motivations in splitting this off the main article. I was simply trying to make things better, as the "section" of the main article was becoming a "dump site" for everyone who mentioned Russert in the days after his death. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If national figures say good things about someone who has died, or if there are evaluations of his career and his contributions, that is very important information to include in his biographical article. We see that in most biographies of historical figures. There is no need to include all of them, because that would unbalance the article. I recommend paring this article down and having a few sentences in the main article. This is a memorial article, and thus does not belong in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a memorial article! It is an article about the ENORMOUS news coverage surrounding Russert's death, which has been like no one else in the history of American journalism, and in fact has been greater than that of past Presidents! Eyabbott (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Eyabbott, that is not true. President Kennedy's death had ENORMOUS coverage, and is still talked about and mourned today. Also Princess Diana's death had WORLD_WIDE coverage. Again, still to this day. This should NOT be separated from his biography, and the coverage section trimmed down so as not to make his death more than his life! He wouldn't want that, I'm sure. Unlike Princess Diana and President Kennedy there is no controversy over his death to justify a "reaction to his death" article. Catagraph (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the Rainbow
I would presume that the version of "Over the Rainbow" played at his (tim's) funeral would be the one by Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, am I right? I believe that this should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLTS91 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was, but I haven't found a source. Tvoz / talk 17:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, seeing an actual rainbow in the sky as the song was being played was very touching. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 16:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source IZ’s ‘Rainbow’ greets Russert’s crowd --Crunch (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed the article
It seemed like much of the argument for deletion was based around the fallacy that this article was designed to be a memorial to Russert, and that the title "Tim Russert tributes" was contributing to that misperception. Therefore, I've moved the article to a more appropriately named page. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved it back. The move messes up links in the AfD. Further, it's not that people think that this page was designed to be a memorial; it's that many think it is serving no purpose but acting as a memorial (intentional or not), considering it is devoting an excessive amount of space to tributes (or "reactions"). Either way, if the article should be moved, it should be after the AfD has concluded (presuming, of course, the article is kept). --  tariq abjotu  18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Wow. People complain that it's a memorial article, I rename it so it's clear it's not, and one of the people arguing for deletion based upon that moves it back. Just wow. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A page move in the middle of an AfD is a bad idea. Besides, the objections aren't to the title but to the content. A ni Mate 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The move is wholly appropriate, but if Tariqabjotu can lend me the crystal ball with which he determined people's depth of analysis of the article, I'll have a look in it too and perhaps undo the rename. :-) Eyabbott (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to nitpick, but wouldn't the more formal (and hence more encyclopedic) title be Reaction to the death of Tim Russert? bd2412  T 07:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. --  tariq abjotu  07:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Against Deletion and Merge
Unless it were to be included in it's entirety in the main Tim Russert article, which is I think the less desirable course. Obviously this does deserve an article in it's own right as it is an unprecedented thing of considerable noteworthyness central also to the whole free and alternative media thing which is what I thought this place was supposed to be. Lycurgus (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a nonsensical assertion. Unprecendented? In what manner? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he means that Tim Russert has never died before... ;-) Seriously, I came here to question why this was an article at all -- but it looks like it's already been merged, so I guess it's a moot point. --AdamRoach (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Integrity is for paupers"
Now seem to recall having heard this before his death, didn't know when recently saw quoted again at first if this was just an unsubstantiated rumour or what but apparently not and obviously germaine. Googling the phrase will return a handful of sources. This should be either here or the main article if it isn't already. Lycurgus (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The "See also" section
It's a mistake to remove the three "see alsos" from the article. It shows clearly (especially the VT massacre article) that media coverage can sometimes merit an article, and the articles linked there are related in that way. As such, I have reverted Tariq's deletion of them. S. Dean Jameson 20:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. As you basically say above, those links are just there as an attempt to demonstrate the notability of this article, rather than as a presentation of articles with relevant or related information. The events in the articles therein are of a completely different magnitude from the death of Tim Russert. --  tariq abjotu  21:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about the magnitude of the event, it's about the magnitude of the coverage of the event. I in no way equate the death of many young college students with the death of a 58 year old man. It's the magnitude and scope of the coverage that makes them similar enough for a "see also." You seem to be getting very angry. Perhaps you should step back from the discussion for awhile. You've made it clear at the AfD that you're not interested in changing your opinion in any way, and the discussion is clearly not going to reach a consensus to delete, so to what purpose do you continue in this, when it clearly frustrates you so much? S. Dean Jameson 21:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that you believe the magnitude of the coverage of Tim Russert's death is comparable to the magnitude of the coverage of Princess Diana's death, the magnitude of the coverage of the Challenger explosion, and the magnitude of the coverage of Virginia Tech massacre? Um... yeah... you may want to abandon that line of thinking. Further, if the AfD were to end right now, there would be a clear consensus to delete or merge this article. I'm not frustrated at all by this process; if you could hear me right now, you'd notice I'm laughing at the absurd lengths you're going because you can't handle the fact that this article will likely be deleted in a few days. You're badgering people who are voting to delete this article; I am merely respsonding to your points which attempt to poison the well by misrepresenting people's arguements and assuming bad faith of me at every turn. --  tariq abjotu  22:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, you seem very angry. Perhaps stepping back from the discussion for awhile might be best. S. Dean Jameson 01:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [me rolling eyes] Don't patronize me, please. --  tariq abjotu  07:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not patronizing you. You seem to be getting angrier and angrier as it becomes apparent that there's no consensus to delete this article, which is why I suggested stepping back. S. Dean Jameson 12:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am close to Russert's age and have lived thru the television era in the US. I have never seen anything like the coverage given his death for a person in his position. Not even close. He's not Diana Spencer nor did his death have the significance of the other events so it's being made into a major event calls for comparison to other articles focusing on media events which become noteworthy as such for which the given list is hardly exhaustive. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this section needs to stay, and be expanded if possible. This article isn't about Tim Russert, it's about the reaction.  This see also section allows readers to draw parallels in the coverage of these events.  The relative magnitude of the coverage doesn't matter the saturation of coverage does and the resulting critism of the coverage itself.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree this see also section needs to state. Currently it has three great examples (Mitchell Report, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Space Shuttle Challenger disaster) of how media/public reactions should be incorporated into the original articles, not a stand alone article of their own. A ni Mate 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the claim for value of this article is now being made based at least in part on the extent of media coverage, the article should be renamed Media reaction to death of Tim Russert. That is a completely different article and focus than Reaction to Tim Russert's death. Such an article might be more appropriate and could contain the criticism of the media coverage as well, ie., was it overblown? --Crunch (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a see also, those articles and this one need to go into a suitable category, specifically, Category:Media coverage and representation, which could do with an overview article to draw them all together and cover the comments of those who study such "media events". Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

International Section
I know Der Spiegel covered (under People on the day of his death). Doubtless other western media with close connections to the US did as well, albeit in a similar manner, not like US coverage. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging this article
A merger has been proposed and opposed by some. Please outline your position on such a merger here so that an edit war can be avoid. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have outlined my position well enough above, and at the AfD. Many others have as well. There wasn't consensus there to merge, but Sandstein said to merge it anyway. I say that's completely out of process, and further !voting here is pointless. There was no consensus to do away with this article at the AfD, period. S. Dean Jameson 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge according to S. Dean Jameson:So you say "delete" (well, "merge", but it's the exact same thing). Looking over the AfD the consensus appears pretty clear that a merge or delete is the appropriate course of action. A ni Mate 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The result at the AfD (even including all the "deletes" as "merges") was 21-14, which is no consensus. This is a pointless, time-wasting display. Sandstein was out of line, period. S. Dean Jameson 23:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You should assume good faith with other editors whether it's something you don't agree with. Bidgee (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to split hairs here, but by my count, I got 24-13. But, whatever the final tally was, there were at least three keeps that sounded more like "keep" and delete / merge it later. --  tariq abjotu  07:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I merged exactly as the closing admin suggested. Fletcher (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Better suited in the Tim Russert article and agree with the comments made by the closing Admin. Bidgee (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. There is no reason for this article to exist; a distillation of this article will fit nicely in the Tim Russert article. Sandstein's close was appropriate, and properly weighing the merits, merge is appropriate. Please stop counting numbers, as AFD is not a vote.  Horologium  (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't a vote, that's true. But when arguments are made equally well, numbers matter. And the numbers showed no consensus to merge. It's as simple as that. S. Dean Jameson 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Before anyone waits an hour or two, and decides that five merges (really "deletes" in disguise; check the AfD contribs) constitute consensus, this pointless discussion should at least be given time to filter to those who argued well for keeping it at the just completed AfD. This is really quite a display. S. Dean Jameson 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You may want to read this if you haven't seen it Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Bidgee (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read the AfD? There was extensive discussion, and no consensus was reached. S. Dean Jameson 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A consensus was reached which was merge. Somethings on Wikipedia may not go the way you want it to but I just deal with it and move on. Bidgee (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain, in detail, how you divine consensus from that discussion. S. Dean Jameson 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And in your interpretation, this alleged lack of consensus defaults to a "keep," which, by sheer coincidence, is exactly the outcome you desire. But there was no consensus to keep the article, and the majority and closing admin did not favor keeping without merging.  You need to give up the serious ownership issues you are exhibiting with this article, and realize you can't always get what you want. I preferred outright deletion, but I made the effort to copy a substantial amount of material into Tim Russert so it would not be lost after the redirect -- which you then deleted because you can't stand to have it compete with "your" article. Fletcher (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not my interpretation, those are the rules. There doesn't have to be consensus to keep. There has to be consensus to delete or merge. No consensus equals keep, by default. That's just the rules. But as I said at AN/I, have fun. I won't be a part of a project that allows this kind of bullying to go on. S. Dean Jameson 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the "rules" indicating "keep without merging" is required, overriding even the proposed solution by the AfD's closing admin. If you are really leaving WP over this, best of luck to you. Fletcher (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (E/C)(In response to really "deletes" in disguise): Yes, please do check the AFD comments, in which I suggested a merge, and specifically stated that outright deletion was not appropriate. AGF much?  Horologium  (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also a little surprised by the admin's closing statements. While there were a good number of editors calling for a merge, I wouldn't call it a consensus, especially looking over the timeline of the comments and how the discussion progressed. --Rtphokie (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Schei&szlig;egal In priniciple I would be in favor of a merge. If even a single strong element that didn't fall into the hagiography present there for this individual, preferably the "Integrity is for paupers" quote. Out of respect for that sentiment I thought it best to retain this article. For me this process is the death of this site as far as I am concerned if it effectively reproduces the performance and role of the worst of the mainstream media. Lycurgus (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of material for a separate article, does not violate any policy. WP is not paper. Eyabbott (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes there is enough material for a separate article, but not a very good one. Health professional's reaction? Candlelight vigil? U.S. Congress? N.B.C employee and Wikipedia entry? This is all just poorly planned filler to try and stretch the article to make it longer and harder to merge. A ni Mate 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume Eyabott and other editors have made good faith efforts to try to improve the article. Yet I still believe we can much better present the information by trimming and incorporating it under Russert's main article.  Fletcher (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it seemed like I was implying that it was done in bad faith, I apologize. Still, the sections are poorly formed and ill advised. A <font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni <font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge for now - too soon for a merge (even if merge goes ahead, may end up being spun back out again later due to size considerations - see Category:Media coverage and representation for similar articles that exist due to amount of coverage and WP:SUMMARY considerations. At the moment, this looks like an attempt by those who wanted to see the article deleted to see it merged instead. If the merger goes ahead, please try and actually merge to get somethnig better than the sum of the two parts, instead of just dropping lots of the material here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my merged version before S. Dean reverted it (under section "Reaction"). I moved what I thought were salient parts, leaving out quotations from entertainers and some details of the memorial services held for Russert.  The intro paragraphs of this article are largely duplicative of those in the main article for Russert, the main difference being additional quotations of condolences.  As this is not a memorial site, it is not appropriate to compile numerous statements of condolences, which do not convey useful information; we can summarize and trim many of these.   Once appropriately trimmed, there is not enough good information to support an independent article -- hence the merge. FOLLOW-UP: My God, looking at Category:Media coverage and representation reveals the total lack of proportion of this article. Fletcher (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "merge" please. what's wrong with a long article? It can be trimmed down some. Catagraph (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, highly notable, ample material for a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, as I stated on the AfD. The size of the article is very misleading, suggesting there is a lot of information that we should be covering on this topic. Indeed, there is a lot of information that we could cover regarding reactions to Tim Russert's death, but we have limits – based on notability, undue weight, etc. – on what should be covered on an encyclopedia. Among the gems within the article are a section on what “Health professionals" have said (nothing earth-shattering), full quotes by various leaders and mourners, and three fair-use pictures. All of this, it seems, is part of an attempt to suggest there is more than enough information on this topic to warrant its own article (i.e. it's too large to fit in the Tim Russert article), when in fact much of this is just filler, filler that shouldn't appear here, in the Tim Russert article, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I discussed the “See also" links with S. Dean earlier on this talk page. Those, I believe, are what epitomize the problem with this article and those who are advocating its inclusion – lack of perspective. S. Dean noted that these links are present to demonstrate that media coverage and public reaction can become the story, so to speak, worthy of its own article. However, it's quite clear that the events referenced in the section (some of which, I might add, don't have separate articles on media coverage) were much more significant than the death of Tim Russert. The fact that the media is covering the death of a fellow journalist over a few days' time does not demonstrate a notable topic worthy of its own article. They're the media; that's what they do. A consensus on merging this article seems to have emerged here and on the AfD, supported by policies on undue weight, what Wikipedia is not, and a simple analysis of this subject in purpose. Those who keep stonewalling attempts to merge this article need to stop. --  tariq abjotu  08:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My favorite line from the article:
 * Physicians and other health professionals reacted to news of Russert's death.
 * yeah that's because that's all that was there before I added something substanstive and removed the lame excuse tag. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this article has a lot of unnecessary filler. <font face="papyrus" color="Black">A <font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni <font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with merging, as in my comment on the earlier debate. I agree with User:Carcharoth's comment about not "dumping" it into the main article, but of course that should go for all merges. :-)  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  09:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or otherwise drastic cleanup. Even the introduction reads horrible. The first sentence at the moment reads "Reaction to Tim Russert's death came from across the political spectrum, electronic and print media, pop culture, and the sports world as well." Judge for yourself. Also sentences like "Among the many who eulogized Russert amidst both tears and laughter" sound so dramatic they have no place in an encyclopedia. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't handle that quote, you'll never be able to handle the rainbows and ukuleles later on! :-)  Fletcher (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep While cleanup is certainly always a good idea, merging is a bad one here. The article is too long and too specific to be effectively merged into the parent article.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After cleanup, the article will have a perfect size to be merged. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge after trimming the rainbows and ukuleles. This sort of diabetes-inducing treacly junk is Wikipedia at its most pathetically recentist and US-centric. Where are the articles of this length about reaction to Gandhi's death, Mohammed's death, Stalin's death, Mao's death, Ayn Rand's death, etc.? The guy was a U.S. television personality, not a saint. We Americans have really got to get over ourselves. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This kind of reasoning is exasperating to me. Wikipedia is not finished. Not by a very long shot. The fact that we don't have articles on such and such famous person in the past says nothing except that our coverage in that area is currently inadequate. Making coverage in this area inadequate as well is not going to solve anything. It has nothing to do with whether Russert was a good man, a good journalist, or anything else. It doesn't have anything to do with who Russert was or where he lived. Anything that gets this much attention should have an article, no matter who or what is involved. Personally, I thought the coverage of his death was excessive, but here I am arguing to keep this article. Everyking (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment "Anything that gets this much attention should have an article, no matter who or what is involved."? Why? Why, in the name of all that is not superficial and happened-this-week, should it? I genuinely fail utterly to understand the reasoning here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia should comprehensively cover all notable things. Everyking (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two problems: we have raised substantive objections as to the notability of reactions to T.R.'s death (while not contesting the notability of Russert himself); and in large part, the article does not actually address its putative topic, inasmuch as it mostly focuses on quoting from and describing tributes, rather than analyzing and commenting upon their significance and context. The media criticism section is a welcome addition, but to survive on its own the article needs to be inverted, to consist mostly of media criticism and analysis, with maybe just a few examples of tributes.  I'm very doubtful there is enough information to support such an article, and the best outcome is to bring any useful information into Russert's main article.  Fletcher (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - all the attention this article's gotten certainly proves its notable on its own. Eyabbott (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a ridiculous argument. So you're saying the fact that most of the comments above are for merging the article is irrelevant? Um... okay. In fact, the reason, I'm sure, this article is getting a lot of attention is because a couple of the keep !voters unhappy with the idea that Sandstein suggested holding a merge discussion here complained about it on ANI and Deletion Review, thereby drawing people here. --  tariq abjotu  03:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-sequitur. Participants in Wikipedia talk pages are hardly reliable sources (except me, of course ;-).  Fletcher (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - all the attention this article's gotten certainly proves that the majority of people think it should be merged. <font face="papyrus" color="Black">A <font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni <font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (that is, oppose merge for now) - AfD ended in no consensus which defaults to keep, not merge. As per Rtphokie, merge was a suggestion, the closer's opinion, that did not have consensus - read the Afd.  How about allowing the piece to develop a bit, rather than rushing to merge when your delete nom fails - as Carcharoth suggests?  Also,  I notice again the comment above that this article is US-centric, and I ask again when that became a criterion for keep, merge or delete.  And finally, I think the sarcastic commentary here about various things in the article is uncalled for and not particularly helpful. "I don't like it" is not a reason for delete or merge.  Tvoz / talk 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I found some of the commentary here about the text overly sarcastic and therefore rude and not particularly helpful, I did an overall edit of the article, taking into account some of the comments here and in general removing hyperbole and tightening the text. I hope interested parties will read it again.  Tvoz / talk 06:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've all read the AfD, and the statement -- from the closing admin, and reiterated on ANI and DRV -- that the merge discussion should take place here. That's what's happening; people are not just "rushing to merge" because the AfD failed, especially considering most people either explicitly or implicitly advocated a merge as an option. There are no WP:IDONTLIKEIT complaints here; people have clearly been contesting this article on the basis of lack of notability, and it's news-like and, at times, memorial-like nature. But, there's no point arguing this: I'm merely waiting for all the people who have been protecting this article with their lives to finish making their comments exaggerating the notability of this topic. In the meantime, I'm going to edit the article and begin removing some of the clutter (because the people in support of keeping this article clearly are not going to do it themselves). --  tariq abjotu  07:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it really a good idea to make controversial edits removing information when we're in the midst of a discussion here? Everyking (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to let some of the keep !voters, who have shown themselves quite protective of this article, continue to act as gatekeepers. There was very little "controversial" about what I actually removed (as opposed to moved or edited), given they were repeatedly denounced as frivolous, irrelevant, excessively detailed, or a combination thereof on the AfD and here. The keep !voters haven't appeared to respond with any counterarguements as to why any of it was particularly important, and instead have focused on explaining to us how the article is too long to merge (adding more frivolous, irrelevant, or excessively detailed content to further this point) and complaining about the manner in which Sandstein closed the AfD. Some of the keep !voters here deny that there's even any reason for a "discussion", so I can barely even say that's going on; no matter what is written here, the outcome is already, as far as they are concerned, keep, no merge. I'll admit that Tvoz was kind enough to make a few changes to the article, but he didn't address the main issues and, as I implied already, he's not a gatekeeper; I can do my own cleanup as well.


 * So, to answer your leading question, no, I wouldn't think that was a good idea -- if there were actually "controversial" changes and if there was actually a "discussion" the keep !voters cared about heeding. We have neither here. --  tariq abjotu  11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, it's "she". Second, I didn't claim or act as gatekeeper and your "I'm not going to let"  sounds an awful lot like you're assuming the gatekeeper role yourself. Your nom failed - there was no consensus to delete or to merge, and your hurried response to it and to an AN/I (which at least one "keep" commenter - me - didn't even see let alone participate in) is disturbing. There are well-meaning editors here who just happen to disagree with you and your opinion didn't carry the day in the AfD, so I think you could be more conciliatory and show more willingness to compromise yourself.  My edits addressed several of the comments that were posted here about the way some of the article was written - e.g., the first sentence, removing hyperbole, making it more encyclopedic.  I don't think  there is some kind of emergency requiring the gutting of this piece in order to make it more suitable for merge - why don't we take a breath and see how this develops.  There is always time to merge a little later, if that's what is agreed to, isn't there?  And I thought we were discussing, not voting. Tvoz / talk 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're responding to a comment that was never made -- at least not by me. I never called you a gatekeeper, and your quibble regarding "I'm not going to let" sounds ridiculous (are you calling me a gatekeeper for gatekeepers?). You completely ignored my point addressing your statement that people are "rushing" here to merge and you ignored Sandstein's explanation of the result of the AfD, which is included on the AfD itself and in greater detail on Sandstein's talk page, ANI, and DRV (as I stated). You suggested that my response to AN/I is disturbing, even though I never commented on the thread there... so, I'm not particularly sure what you could be talking about. You ignored the multiple times when I said some keep voters, and you seem to be unaware of the fact that this article is still here and not actually being merged at the moment. I'm removing information that wouldn't be suitable for an article neither here nor there and reordering things so we don't have these silly section-ettes. No one's "gutting" this article for a merge. I don't know how you can complain about me not compromising or being concilitory; as long as the article is still here, I'm compromising.


 * Now, try again. --  tariq abjotu  18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Tariq, it's certainly possible that I misunderstood you, and if so  - despite your tone in the last comment - I apologize,  but 1) your comment here sounds to me  like you are reacting to the fact that an item was posted to AN/I  (again, I haven't read the AN/I, so can't say if I would agree with it or not) and I am bothered  by what appears to be an unwillingness to accept the no consensus→keep close and what seemed to me to be a rush to merge when your delete nomination failed;   2) re-reading your gatekeeper comments I actually am not sure now what you meant by them;  3) I did notice that you said "some" people who favored keep were acting in some kind of untoward manner, so if you were  excluding me, fine.  I accept what you said about your  compromising, but I do think the article's paring down is in preparation for the merge that you favor - remove things from here that aren't in the main article and then, voila, a merge is a fait accompli.   This may come as a surprise to you, but before this sub article was created I was arguing in favor of keeping a somewhat detailed tribute/reaction section in the main article - at least for a while -  that would resemble what Fletcher has done, and would have been satisfied if that section had remained like that without this new article.  I believe the impetus behind creating this separate article was that some people were in favor of significantly cutting down that material in the main article, so a sub article was created to try to satisfy both points of view. My argument has been consistent that there was no reason to rush to action in either place - let the original article stand for a while with what might ultimately be viewed as too much detail, and then consider paring it down after some time has gone by,  and/or leave this one alone for the time being and revisit it after a while. So we may not be as far apart as you might think.   (By the way - I don't think you have commented on my objection to the US-centric rationale or my different reading of WP:MEMORIAL, but I suppose you're not obliged to do so.)  Tvoz / talk 00:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge So much for the edit war being avoided. The edit war has now been taken to ANI.  Enigma  message 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. There is no consensus to merge.  Enigma  message 18:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that. You know that. But, there's several editors that are determined to see this article gone anyway. S. Dean Jameson 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fletcher's merge / comments about memorials
Fletcher tried to merge the articles with great success, in my opinion, as seen here. The problem that caused the article to be split in too was the volume of tributes listed in the original. When the argument that Wikipedia isn't a memorial gained traction in the AfD, a ton of text was taken out. The removal of all the tributes made this much easier to incorporate back into the article, and I think Fletcher did a fine job doing so. The only way I can see this article standing on its own is getting more information, and the only way I think the only way to do that is to go back to making this a memorial, which would violate policy. All of the salient information is there in Fletcher's merge. I think we should give it a go. <font face="papyrus" color="Black">A <font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni <font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a re-reading of WP:MEMORIAL is in order. It says: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.  That is not at all what this article is, or  the section that was/is in the main article.   The tributes/reactions were by notable  people about a notable person.  Tvoz / talk 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * AniMate clearly said that when the large number of tributes were in this article (i.e. before they were removed during the AfD), this article was a violation of WP:MEMORIAL. Now that they're no longer in the article (well, arguably, they're no longer in the article), the problem is that there isn't enough information for the article to stand on its own. --  tariq abjotu  18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely understood what AniMate said, Tariq, but what my last comment stated was I respectfully disagree with AniMate that this article (or Tim Russert) was in violation of WP:MEMORIAL before or after it was edited. The policy clearly identifies "memorial" as referring to departed friends and relatives and that subjects must be notable besides being fondly remembered.  That has nothing to do with the original article  or any version of this one that I recall. So let's try to keep the arguments straight.  Tvoz / talk 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are misreading. The policy doesn't mean Wikipedia is not a memorial for departed friends and relatives, but is a memorial for celebrities.  It means Wikipedia is not a memorial, period, giving memorials for non-notable friends and relatives as an example of how people abuse the site.  Fletcher (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Fletcher - that's not what it says, and friends and relatives are clearly not just an example. All it says is Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. - that is clear and specific - don't set up an article for your dead great-aunt Fanny or your favorite college professor or by extension any person, unless he or she has some other notability. The second sentence has no other possible interpretation - the dead person has to be otherwise notable to warrant an article and dying doesn't usually confer notability on its own.  If the policy was meant to say something else,  which I realize is possible, then it needs to be significantly re-written. And by the way - I repeat that we're not talking here about Tim Russert's plumber saying he was a great guy. We're talking about commentary  by notable people about a notable person.  It is not at all in violation of the policy as it currently is written. Tvoz / talk 01:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy is not as explicitly written as it could be, but using common sense and good judgment, I think we can say the policy intends to rule out memorial pages in general, not just memorial pages for non-notable people. It reads "Wikipedia pages are not [...] 4. Memorials."  The following explication is simply an example and not intended to be all inclusive, and would presumably delineate guidelines for valid memorials if they were indeed allowed.  I don't see any other plausible way of reading it.  Do you really intend to argue memorial pages are acceptable on Wikipedia, so long as the decedent is notable?   Fletcher (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what I think the policy actually means to say is that one should not set up a page as a memorial - and right, not for celebrities any more than regular folk, although it doesn't say that. In other words, we should not set up a page called "Remembering Tim Russert" where people can come by and post their thoughts about him, his career, his life, his death, or anything else, no matter who they are. But a page - or an article  section - that is comprised of sourced comments that are publicly made by notable people about this notable person - all the better if there is critical analysis of those comments from third parties - I would argue does not constitute a "memorial".  We're not making the tributes, we're reporting on those that were made that are notable by some standard, including the notability of the speaker.  Not his plumber, but his colleagues; not his next-door neighbor, but his competitors; not me, but a former president; not in private, but in public where it has been reported on by reliable sources.   Tvoz / talk 02:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

<=== Notability is more like a solid, and inheres to the topic that is notable. A notable person is simply a person who deserves an article. Statements issued by notable people are not inherently notable. Statements about notable people are not inherently notable. Statements by notable people, about notable people are not inherently notable. They might well be appropriate to cite in the context of a different article, but to merit a new article for the statements, there needs to be something about them that is worthy of notice. You are arguing notability is more like a gas cloud, like a pleasant odor, and we can put little notability molecules surrounding notable people in a jar, and use them to create new notable articles, but like the story of Patrick Susskind's Perfume, the results of this exercise are monstrous (well, maybe not that monstrous). Any notable person or event could get "reaction" articles compiling what (notable) people said about it, in effect making Wikipedia a news site, a directory of news reporting, or perhaps a directory of quotations. But we already have Wikinews and Wikiquote. As an encyclopedia, we should instead strive for articles that convey valuable, neutral information on topics that transcend the news of the day.


 * I'm sure Fletcher's merge was just a first attempt, but I don't like how it looked. It was too dependent on the structure of this article and wasn't selective enough. I don't we need any further subsections below "Reactions" at this point (I don't third-level headers are encouraged in articles). We could probably, for instance, cut out the health professionals entirely and merge the rest of the sections into one whole "Reactions" section. --  tariq abjotu  08:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm amenable to further trimming or restructuring. I merged more than I thought was necessary, in the hope that people can subsequently work out what we should keep and what we can trim -- as opposed to edit warring over the merge itself.  Plus, it was just easier for me.  ;-)  Fletcher (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
Yes, that's right; there's a deletion review: Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24. --  tariq abjotu  12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was closed and referred back here for discussion, as is appropriate. Everyking (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile I've redirected this to Tim Russert. This was a classic media feeding frenzy over the death of a minor media figure, and the best thing we can do is to wait for the fuss to die down.  There's no sense memorializing the silly affair. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we've got a two-thirds majority here for merging, and nearly the same against keeping the article on AfD (especially considering the secondary statement from the closing admin). In addition, we also have several people, both here and on the AfD, mentioning delete/merge "for now" or "delete later". Your action seems on-par both with the sentiment expressed in the past week and a couple days, as well as with applicable policies and guidelines. --  tariq abjotu  12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. There has been nothing resembling a full and fair discussion. The person blanking and redirecting hadn't participated at all, and this was completely inappropriate. This is nothing more than the "deletes" attempting a backdoor delete when they couldn't get it done at AfD. If that sounds like "bad faith" or whatever, it's because bad faith has clearly been demonstrated, both in Tariq's tone toward Tvoz above, and the demonstrable actions of a few attempting to override AfD policy by citing an unorthodox closing statement as bolstering their case for deletion/merging in some way. S. Dean Jameson 13:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just dying to know when you're going to consider this merge discussion "full and fair". We have sizable majorities of people here and on the AfD stating that they do not believe this article does not belong. Eighteen opinions here, over thirty on the AfD. Most merge and delete discussions don't get half that, and yet, that's not good enough for you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the only "full and fair" discussion is one that ends without a merge. --  tariq abjotu  15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You condescending attitude helps nothing. Majority doesn't rule here, consensus does. You don't have that, at least not yet. S. Dean Jameson 15:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Having already attempted a merge, I am of course in agreement. However as there was no consensus for outright deletion, perhaps some material should be copied into the main Russert article, which is what I did with my merge before the edit war.  While I think the Tributes section in Tim Russert is already longer than it needs to be, merging some material without losing it should be a satisfactory compromise for people who wanted to keep the article.   The criticism of media coverages strikes me as the most informative material, for example, with the rest largely duplicating what's already in Tim Russert and serving only to memorialize the man rather than provide informative content.  Fletcher (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The matter already seems to be covered quite fully in the Tim Russert article. Does any more need to be added? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. The coverage of Russert's death was a phenomenon in itself, which is what this article covers. I initially created it to unclutter the Russert article, and several of us have been working on it to make it a better article since that time. S. Dean Jameson 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: some of us have been working to improve the article, while you "retired" in a fit of histrionics. Fletcher (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem. Attack points, not people. I was frustrated, which has no bearing on this discussion, except in the minds of those attacking me. S. Dean Jameson 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. You stormed out because you weren't getting your way. You came back because you weren't getting away. It says a lot about the futility of this discussion as long as you're around (whether contributing more of the same points alleging delete voters are bitter, or hovering in the distance). We will never achieve consensus for merging, because you will not recognize or accept it. --  tariq abjotu  16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I left for a few days out of frustration with the bullying that was going on. And I'm not the only one keeping this article from being unilaterally deleted/merged. There were 14 at the AfD, and several have made it here as well. You admit you'll never achieve consensus to merge. Then you know what? It doesn't happen. Those are the rules, Tariq, and why I decided to "retire" has no bearing on that. Period. S. Dean Jameson 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "You admit you'll never achieve consensus to merge". Wow; way to twist my words. --  tariq abjotu  16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A direct quote from you is, "We will never achieve consensus for merging", which is word for word. Certainly, you blame me for this, as if I was the only one who thinks merging is a bad idea. The fact of the matter is, I'm not. Many editors have weighed in against a merge. You've admitted you can't achieve consensus to do so. So please stop redirecting it without consensus to do so. S. Dean Jameson 16:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said at the AN/I discussion, one person disagreeing does not mean that there is no consensus. Consensus≠unanimity, and one or two militant editors cannot prevent consensus from being achieved.  Horologium  (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. Do I really need to list every person who has weighed in to oppose merging? S. Dean Jameson 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not much else; the main article already includes much of the information already here. Perhaps something about the criticism of the media response could be added. However, there's no "phenomenon" to speak of. --  tariq abjotu  15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the extended discussion above would make it very clear to everyone that no consensus exists to merge the article. Tony's action was very inappropriate. We have discussions for a reason. Everyking (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is Tony? Is that Horologium or Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The? As for Tariq, we all know your position. You tried to have it deleted. You failed. You are now trying to achieve the same thing through other means. We get that. S. Dean Jameson 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Consensus" is such a bad word here. Obviously, we don't have "consensus" because there are people who disagree with this article being merged, but the idea that this article does not belong has been affirmed twice -- here and on the AfD. A conclusion otherwise means you're setting the bar for "consensus" too high (for obvious reasons). Tony just had the guts to put that result into action. --  tariq abjotu  15:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes less than no sense. Consensus is not a "bad word." It's how we make changes. There's no consensus to do what he did, especially as he didn't even bother to participate in the discussion. "The idea that the article doesn't belong" has never reached consensus, and you're trying to change the rules to "majority rules" in the middle of the dispute. Sorry, Tariq, it doesn't work that way. If consensus doesn't develop, the default is "keep." That's just the way it is. S. Dean Jameson 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, the result of the AfD was "there is a consensus (or a near consensus) that this topic does not deserve an article of its own." And it's risible that you complain of bullying, while you try to bully and wikilawyer your way until you get the outcome you want. No, it is not "just the way it is."  Fletcher (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop. The result was "no consensus." You are WAY out of line here. Sandstein's closing statement has no bearing on the discussion, and he's said so at his talk. Your tag-team out of process blanking/redirecting is wildly inappropriate. S. Dean Jameson 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to delete, as is clearly evident on Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes; you are quoting selectively. The admin suggested a merge, but opined a merge is an editorial process rather than an administrative one.  And that's what we are doing here -- undertaking the editorial process as we see fit.  Your barking orders at me is not helpful, although it is pretty funny.  Fletcher (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Be amused about whatever you like. Sandstein made it clear that he thought there should be discussion before action. That discussion has not yielded anything RESEMBLING consensus, yet you and the other "deletes" are taking action anyway. That's completely inappropriate. S. Dean Jameson 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

S. Dean's canvassing
S. Dean has already canvassed some of the keep voters, so the well for any future discussion has already been poisoned. --  tariq abjotu  18:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Convenient that you would claim this, since you claim that conensus has already been reached, when it hasn't. Trying to shut down discussion, are you? S. Dean Jameson 18:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he's right, your canvassing was thoroughly inappropriate. Further, your "count" below ignores all of the deletes from the AFD (about 13 of them), which can hardly be supporters of keeping the article as you would have the RFC commenters believe.  Horologium  (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I explicitly state that I'm only counting the discussion from THIS TALK PAGE. How is that misleading? There are keeps from the AfD that haven't weighed in yet either, so it's easier to simply tally the discussion from this page. S. Dean Jameson 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: To merge or not to merge?
A recent AfD closed with no consensus to delete this article. The closing admin suggested a merge and redirect, but indicated he was not proscribing or implementing the merge, but rather suggesting it. Discussion has ensured on this Talk page. A majority favors merge, but there is disagreement over whether this constitutes consensus. Note: The proposed content of the article can be found here. (Full disclosure: I actually don't have an opinion and have not previously participated in this debate). --Jaysweet (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we please revert to status quo (existence of the article) during the RfC? As the tally below (of the discussion here at the talk page) indicates, there's nothing resembling consensus (at least, as yet) for redirecting/merging. S. Dean Jameson 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RfC commenters, please ignore S. Dean's head count below and above statement. I trust you all can look at the discussion yourself. S. Dean has trouble with the truth, and even has the head count wrong. Do your own analysis. --  tariq abjotu  19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from attacking other editors during the RfC. If my tally of the discussion is wrong, please feel free to correct it. I know it refutes your "consensus has been reached" argument, but it's there in black and white. Calling me a liar doesn't change that. S. Dean Jameson 19:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a comment here... typically the point of an RfC is to get the opinion of outside editors, i.e. people who were previously uninvolved. :) The head count is a bit irrelevant to that, IMO. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I'm creating this section to help the RfC stay organized.
 * I support the merge. I've never been a fan of these sorts of fork articles.  It's almost like "Tim Russert's death in popular culture".   Hi DrNick ! 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet it's not, since the orginal article explored the criticism of the reactions to his death, as well as how widespread the phenomena was. THanks for your participation in the RfC, though, the more people who participate, the better off we'll be. S. Dean Jameson 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see the merge is done. If that stands please remember to remove the RfC tag above. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The merge was done before a full discussion was had, which was why the RfC was opened. (This is another reason I think the article should stay until after the RfC, Jay. It's confusing to people.) S. Dean Jameson 01:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if the merge was premature then it should be undone before so many subsequent edits come in on the mergeto article that it is more difficult than need be to undo it. Either undone pending the RfC (with WP:RPP if needed) or close the RfC or (worst choice) make it clear that this is an "after-the-fact" RfC and provide a link to the version you want us to look at. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. But as a participant (unfortunately) in an edit war attempting to maintain the article for at least the duration of the discussion, I won't revert it. S. Dean Jameson 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the article, I hope temporarily. I agree it could be confusing to come to this RfC, click on the "article" tab to see what's so bad about it, and then be redirected to a different page that is not under dispute.  I hope this wouldn't count against my 3RR count, as I'm going against my own preference.  Fletcher (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I think it will be helpful. Also, what do you think of Everyking's potential "way forward" presented below? S. Dean Jameson 02:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge - I looked over the AfD and both this and the parent article and I am in agreement with the merge as apparently already performed. I think that the current level of treatment in the parent article looks about right (just talking length mainly, interested parties must hammer out the details) and not overly long or "cluttering up the article" and there is no need for a standalone article. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though I strongly disagree with your conclusion (for reasons I outlined clearly in previous discussions), I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 03:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. It would not be inappropriate for you to summarize the strongest objections to the merge in a subsection immediately below the RfC tag. And for the supporters of the merge to do the same in a separate subsection. And honor (stay out of) the space of the other similar to an arb or user RfC, i.e. no back and forth under each others arguments. This would require some agreement among the two sides but I have had success with it. That way strangers can get a quick recap without having to wade though a wall of words (mixed metaphors - scale a wall of words?) Personally, and just looking at your response to another, I think that the extent of the response can be adequately described and represented in relatively few sentences as can any criticism. The idea being to describe and represent the extent, not model it. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge - per all the arguments summarized below. Martinp (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of arguments supporting a merge
''Placeholder for those supporting merging above to summarize their arguments for the benefit of commenters.


 * 1) This is a nine-day wonder, a media feeding frenzy that is better dealt with in context and with appropriate prominence in the article Tim Russert
 * 2) I feel that Wikipedia isn't a Memorial nor a News/A Current Affairs site is part of my reason for a merger and is best to be placed on the Tim Russert article much like articles such as Steve Irwin. Bidgee (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) (Primarily in response to arguments articulated below by S. Dean Jameson) While there is voluminous documentation available, much of it is not notable. The relevant information contained in this article is already present at Tim Russert, a nicely sized section in an article that is nowhere near large enough to need splitting. The main article contains 16K of prose—2707 words—well under the guidelines defined at Summary Style, which contains several other points that apply to this article as well. The Virginia Tech massacre saturation coverage has been mentioned as a counterpoint; without even discussing the ramifications of Other Stuff Exists (yes, it is an essay) there is little comparison. The VT incident covered the violent murders of 32 people, while this is the death of single individual under normal circumstances. We don't have separate articles covering reactions to the deaths of Franklin D. Roosevelt or Richard Nixon or Peter Jennings, and we don't need one for Tim Russert.  Horologium  (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I fail to see why or what makes this an notable reaction. Virginia Tech massacre and this article are not the same since this isn't about an massacre. Also should we have articles for media who over react about a death or other matters? Again Wiki isn't a place for opinions on the media reaction or how they handled it. Yes it's sad to see someone who maybe well known (to some). Bidgee (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Treat it like any other article. The media frenzy is over.  There's an appropriate amount of coverage of this already in the main article. Friday (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral point of view is another reason it's preferable to condense and merge. By custom, when someone dies people say lots of nice things about him or her, and it's unseemly to criticize.  So all of the statements made aren't remotely objective evaluations of Russert.  While one can argue the topic is supposed to be the statements/reactions themselves and not Russert, in effect we have such a large number of statements quoted there is an implication that Wikipedia is endorsing Russert as a great man.  This is a POV fork.  Indeed, after reading the early versions of the article I was almost ready to see him as messianic -- not to mention the rainbow after the funeral, a sure sign of God himself smiling down on his fallen son anchorman.  What I'm saying is just that while it's natural and human to want to honor the dead, Wikipedia articles should not manipulate the reader's emotions, and this article is guilty of such melodrama.  NPOV problems are not a reason to delete, but once it's cleaned up, there's not much to support an independent article -- thus, we should merge.  Fletcher (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of arguments opposing a merge
''Placeholder for those opposing merging above to summarize their arguments for the benefit of commenters.


 * 1) The article is not a "memorial", at least per WP:MEMORIAL, and this isn't a valid reason for merging, even if it were.
 * 2) The article documents a well-sourced phenomena, in which the death of a journalist led to massive media coverage and unprecedented reaction (for a person of his standing) from people of high ranks and stations.
 * 3) The article also documents the well-sourced criticism that the media's coverage of his death engendered.
 * 4) One similar article is the article on the the media's coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre.
 * The above reasons were added by S. Dean Jameson at 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC). I will add more, perhaps later.
 * 1) Additionally, the fact that Russert's death was not of the same actual magnitude as the VT Massacre argues for the articles notability, as it makes the media coverage his death was given more notable indeed. One expects the media to react in a frenzy to an event of huge magnitude. The fact that they did so (and various notable personalities did as well) for the death of a simple journalist makes the reactions to his death that much more notable. S. Dean Jameson 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Again, how out-of-proportion the media response was argues for, not against, the notability of the topic of this article. That's what makes it a notable topic, that has been sourced well to a variety of reliable sources. The fact that the reaction to the death of the people listed in (3) above has no bearing on whether the reaction (and overreaction) to this death deserves an article. There's very little that could be classified as "memorial-y" left in this article, and whether or not FDR has an article specifically about the reaction to his death doesn't bear on this discussion. A correllary to WP:WAX's "Otherstuffexists", is "Otherstuffdoesn'texist", after all. (One of the examples given is "Delete. Y doesn't have an article, so neither should this." S. Dean Jameson 13:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) We're discussing the current version, not the early version. The early version was simply basically moved "whole cloth" from the cluttered section in the main article. I and others have since cleaned it up some. I'm almost afraid to keep working on it now, though, since it could be merged at any time. I think the article, as it stands, has few NPOV issues, and is an article about a notable happening, not a notable person. S. Dean Jameson 14:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A Brief Listing of Merge Support and Opposition
This is only from the above discussion, and does not take into account the 13-14 "keeps" from the AfD. How is this "consensus to merge"? S. Dean Jameson 19:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge (7)

Lycurgus

S. Dean Jameson

Eyabott

Everyking

Rtphokie

Tvoz

Enigma

Support merge (9)

OrangeMike

Killerofcruft

Animate

Tariqabjutu

Fletcher

Horologium

Catagraph

Grey Knight

Reinoutr

Tally stricken as it is disputed, and is pretty much irrelevant anyway. The point here is to get new opinions. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Sorry about missing Reinoutr. I just whiffed on that one, I guess. S. Dean Jameson 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the (apparently disputed) accuracy of the vote cont, I don't see where vote-counting matters much. His death was briefly a media sensation, but we're not a news site. Working this stuff back into the main article as appropriate is a good thing to do. This is in line with standard Wikipedia practice. We generally only have a separate article on the death of someone when it's more than a brief media frenzy. Compare assassination of John F. Kennedy - this topic is separate from John F. Kennedy due to the huge amount of ongoing attention the murder has gotten, stretched over many many years. Friday (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the Kennedy Assassination article. It's an article about the reaction prompted by Russert's death. And if you dispute the accuracy of my tally of the discussion, feel free to fix it. S. Dean Jameson 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Friday disputes the tally, I think he was referencing the fact that Tariq (apparently) disputes it. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * S. Dean Jameson, do you understand what I'm saying? Your response is.. well, you don't appear to be responding to the substance of what I'm saying.  Rather, you appear to be focused on irrelevancies.  Nobody is saying this is the Kennedy Assassination article.  The purpose of talk page discussion is to find some mutually acceptable solution, not to try to score debate points.  Friday (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I dispute it. Bidgee's comment is not included, nor is Anticipation's obvious support of merging. S. Dean must think Scheißegal is German for 'keep' or that 'In priniciple I would be in favor of a merge.' is Hebrew for "I agree with S. Dean" or else he wouldn't have marked Lycurgus under Keep. It suggests that the 13 keeps on the AfD don't overlap with the keep votes here, when of course they do -- a lot. And he nicely failed to mention the two dozen merge or delete comments on the AfD (which don't overlap as much as the 'keep' comments do). It doesn't take into account the people who said 'keep for now or delete later. It doesn't take into account Calton's action either, and, as Friday mentioned, it reduces this to X votes vs. Y votes, ignoring the content of different people's arguments. No, it's inaccurate and not comprehensive, but why do I still expect something else at this point? --  tariq abjotu ' 19:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not include mine? Really I would like it deleted but happy for a merge not a keep. If this article is kept where does it stop with other well known people such as Steve Irwin. IMO Wiki is not an Memorial it's an Encyclopedia. Bidgee (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just missed yours, evidently. Sorry about that. As for WP:MEMORIAL, that's not policy, and even if it were, the article as it stands doesn't really violate it, in my view. It's an article discussing the huge reaction to Russert's death in various places, and the criticism that reaction has brought about. I personally removed a bunch of quotes from the article, and renamed it as well, just so it wouldn't become a memorial. S. Dean Jameson 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is/was to merge (and not using numbers). Still reads like an Memorial (such as the lead sentence at the beginning of the article and then is the IBS and Wikipedia notable? IMO it's not). This could fit into the Tim Russert article. Bidgee (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you say we've achieved consensus? There's still a significant minority, with legitimate arguments against merging. Consensus isn't reached just because one side has a slightly larger group, and thinks that they're right. It's not about numbers, true, but if the numbers aren't overwhelming at all, and both sides make legitimate arguments, how can you say there's consensus? S. Dean Jameson 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I marked Lycurgus under "Keep" based upon this quote:
 * Unless it were to be included in it's entirety in the main Tim Russert article, which is I think the less desirable course. Obviously this does deserve an article in it's own right as it is an unprecedented thing of considerable noteworthyness central also to the whole free and alternative media thing which is what I thought this place was supposed to be. Lycurgus (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The emphasis above is my own. S. Dean Jameson 19:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I just looked up "Scheißegal" and it means, literally "I don't give a damn." That's almost the point you've bludgeoned me to as well, so I understand Lycurgus' sentiment. Keep up the good work, Tariq. S. Dean Jameson 19:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen, the point of an RfC is to get outside participation. Tallying the participating so far is sort of pointless (and anyway, it's not a vote, so straw polls like this are always dubious).  I would advocate that we just remove the tally, rather than argue over what other people's past positions have been.  Okay? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, at one point they were trying to claim there were only two editors against merging. I posted this to show that they were misrepresenting things. But if you feel it's counterproductive, remove it, as long as they desist from making specious claims about the amount of opposition to a merge/redirect. S. Dean Jameson 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we were claiming that only two people were reverting the merge, which was true (at the time; one more person has reverted the merge) and six people had attempted to merge the article. This was all clearly visible in the edit history.  Horologium  (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

An open apology
In looking back through my discussion with the people attempting to delete/merge the article, I recognize that I have advocated my position with such vigor that it has led to hard feelings and anger. I apologize completely for the role my tone and attitude have played throughout. This is my first real dispute on Wikipedia, and I have not handled it as I should have. Please accept my apologies. I have copied a version of this apology to the page of the users I feel I may have offended. S. Dean Jameson 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology is of course accepted. No sense in holding a wiki-grudge. <font face="papyrus" color="Black">A <font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni <font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Accepted. Coincidentally, on a completely different topic I have recently had some of my writing merged and removed, so I know it isn't a pleasant feeling. I try to keep in mind this is a collaborative project, and I can't control what other people are going to do.  Viewing oneself as a guardian of words is,  I think, an approach that inexorably leads to a lot of frustration on a wiki, because you just can't stop people from making changes you don't like.  Of course, you are free to revert and make your own changes, but if you are of the mindset that your version ought to be set down in stone after vanquishing your rivals, Wikipedia will be a never-ending pain in the ass for you.  In that respect, I think WP:DGAF is the most satisfying wiki-essay I've seen.  Fletcher (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What to do here?
There is no consensus here. That is plain as day. There is a narrow majority in favor of redirecting&mdash;not even a substantial majority, let alone a consensus. According to Wikipedia practice, this outcome defaults to keep. Yet those opposed to the article are redirecting it anyway, and they are even revert warring to preserve the redirect. It's difficult to see where to go from here, as I don't want to participate in a revert war and I don't think it would accomplish anything. Since there are only two clear technical options&mdash;redirect or have a separate article&mdash;I don't know of any possibilities for compromise. The best thing I can think of is that we hold a straightforward vote with an agreed upon percentage required for merging. I personally would be happy to accept any redirect decision that resulted from such a vote. Everyking (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm amenable to this, and I think that the standard "pass" percentages for RfAs might be a good standard to use. Something around 75-80% needed to claim consensus. Will that be acceptable to other parties, though? S. Dean Jameson 02:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RfA? Serious? AfD works on roughly two thirds, but consensus isnt numbers, anyway, but also strength of arguments and many other things. Polls are evil (I'm directing this at Jameson, Everyking's been here quite a while and I don't want to sound patronizing :)) -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't agree a lack of consensus defaults to "keep."  That applies only to the AfD process (in which "keep" only means "don't delete", and does not proscribe merging or redirecting, as per WP:DEL).
 * I have a quick question about this. What do we do then, if there are, say, 8 or 9 editors supporting redirecting, and a significant minority opposing? Something like 6 or 7? Does the majority rule, simpy by brute force of numbers? There has to be some "default to" option, does there not? Per AfD, I would assume that would be "keep", but if there's a different protocol that that, I could be wrong. I'm not completely familiar with how things work around here. S. Dean Jameson 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) We haven't given the RfC very much time.  So far, it is a little disappointing with very few outsiders chiming in.  Maybe we should give it longer; I'm not sure what is customary.
 * 2) A request for mediation might be the next logical step if we discern the RfC hasn't worked.
 * 3) WP:POLLING and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY don't seem to look fondly on voting.
 * 4) An alternative might be a postponement of a merger for a set time (two weeks, a month, or whatever).  In the interim, we could see if more sourcing develops that could support an independent article, and then conduct another RfC to see what people think of it.  It's my view the article is frivolous now, and will seem even more so in the future, so to me postponement is a matter of delaying what I want now to get it later -- but of course I could be proven wrong.  Regardless of what others think of it, postponement will be my policy because as of Saturday I will be on vacation for a week.  >:)  But first we should see how the RfC does. --Fletcher (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that, Fletcher - it's what I've been asking to happen all along: wait, don't rush to delete or merge. Give the article a chance to develop, give people a chance to weigh in, see how it feels a week or a month from now.  To that end, though, I think removing sections of the article (like the memorial service section) might not be the most neutral approach, but  at the same time, I don't think it's the most important thing.  Tvoz / talk 04:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And the continual reverting to redirect is not helping here - there's no consensus for it yet, and it has turned into an edit war. The status quo was to have the article for now - even opposers like tariq cited the continued existence of the article as evidence that he was compromising - so this "bold" move in the face of an obvious lack of agreement is really just inflammatory.  I'm reverting it back and hope it will stand for now until we've worked this out. Is there an emergency? Tvoz / talk 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Every time I propose holding a vote to resolve some issue, people object because "voting is evil". Well, my opinion is that you can't get a meaningful resolution to these kinds of difficult issues, where a compromise option doesn't exist, without a vote. Otherwise, there's just fruitless argument with one side eventually winning by A) being more aggressive or manipulative or B) maintaining interest in the article longer than the other side. To me, that kind of outcome is "evil".

Another, vague idea, if any kind of compromise wiggle-room does exist, would be to have the article morph into something broader, like "Assessments of Tim Russert's life and career". That way the article need not focus on just the assessments that were made very recently. Everyking (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We already have this, just not under that name. See Tim Russert.  Any encyclopedia article about a person amounts to "assesssments of so-and-so's life and career".  Friday (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The crux of the problem here, obviously, is that the main Russert doesn't provide the space or scope that we need for further detail. Everyking (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The crux of the problem is that there is a difference of opinion on appropriate scope. The people opposing the merge want a larger scope than is in the main article; the people supporting the merge feel that there is no need for a separate article, and likely support what is already in place at the main article.  Horologium  (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to comment here, as I commented before. My answer has been delayed somewhat, but I've looked at the main article and at this one, and the content is vary similar, so I would support a careful merge of the material, with discussion at Talk:Tim Russert on the details of what is within scope. Not a straight redirect, but a careful merge. Carcharoth (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the AFD produced 2:1 in favour of a merge, which I would certainly have considered consensus on any other article. It also seems to me that this article is now short enough that it could be merged in toto to the main article, meaning that we have no loss of information. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected
There is no rush to come to a solution here. The RFC above is ongoing.

I have therefore protected this article for a week to prevent further edit-warring - from users who should know better! - while the decision of whether to retain it or redirect it to the parent article is discussed.

Admins, please, please don't ignore the protection and redirect the article anyway. You all (I hope) know if you're making editorial decisions, your administrative tools are not to be used. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  08:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How long do you intend to leave this? (Do you really think the whole week is needed?) It's becoming more clear what the right answer is.  Friday (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think we should wait until a few more than 3 people weigh in on the matter at the RfC before we decide what's clear. S. Dean Jameson 03:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A Compromise Proposal
This is a compromise proposal, based upon an idea floated by User:Fletcher in his above comments. I propose that a moratorium of 6 weeks be placed upon merging the article. During that time, those of us interested in keeping a stand-alone article can keep an eye out for new and interesting sources, while potentially reevaluating our positions if none arise. This time frame would also allow for some space from the current dispute to cool tempers that flared during the past several days. At the end of this time, a new RfC would be opened, opinions would be offered as to the notability of the topic, and a decision would be reached.

Users agreeing to the above proposal:

Discussion
 * 1) S. Dean Jameson 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Reinoutr (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Baseballfan789 (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As the proposer, I can certainly see a potential change-of-mind from myself given the time frame proposed here. S. Dean Jameson 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections from me, as long as the newly to-be-added material is of enough encyclopedic value and does not contain the dramatic prose we have seen here earlier. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind signing in the agree section, just for clarity's sake? S. Dean Jameson 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is no compromise. We can already see that reasonable arguments and standard Wikipedia practice favor the merge.  This is just obstructionism.  It probably made sense to temporarily separate this article out during the frenzy, to isolate the large amount of edits from the main article.  But the frenzy is over now, folks.  Friday (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this not a compromise? I've made it clear that I would be willing to merge after said time. Is that not compromise? S. Dean Jameson 23:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This media frenzy is already over. 6 more weeks is ridiculous.  It's not a compromise; it's just obstruction, like I said.  Friday (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you view me as acting as an obstruction here. It was certainly not my intention. S. Dean Jameson 03:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is wise. The best time to reach a decision is when we have more people involved; not many will be left after six weeks. I also don't think new sources have any potential to solve the problem: I think the article should exist regardless of whether any new sources come to light, and others would oppose having the article even if we found a hundred more. Everyking (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the comment below, I can't disagree with you, EK. It may or may not work, but I'm simply trying to find some kind of "middle way" that could perhaps appeal to those open to compromise. And for the record, this isn't a "redo." We've yet to come to anything like "consensus" for change. The fact that there's still disagreement, from multiple sources, on what should happen here shows that much. S. Dean Jameson 23:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Against proposal, as it creates another unnecessary hurdle to implementing the fate of this article. It's enough that this third 'redo' in the form of an RfC is even occurring. --  tariq abjotu  21:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any rush to merge, and it might be helpful to let tempers die down. But agreeing not to merge represents at least a temporary concession by people on my side of the argument.  What are you conceding?   A "willing[ness] to merge" is vague and non-committal.  What would you actually do to address our concerns?  Are you willing to reduce the content in the article that others find problematic, such as the large number of quotations?  Do you expect more sourcing to develop that would help explain why the topic is significant? Clearly, you believe it is significant.  But many of us don't see why.  I don't see Wikipedia as a barometer of media coverage, nor a compilation of things people say, even if they can be reliably sourced.   Fletcher (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm out of here for a week. Fletcher (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also oppose this proposal, for the reasons I have articulated above. I don't believe a separate article is warranted, and while there is no deadline when dealing with non-BLP, legal issues, holding on to this article for six weeks appears to be simply obstructionist.  Horologium  (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In a vein drawn from Fletcher's oppose (regarding the many quotes), it might be worth exploring whether some of the quotes are appropriate for WikiQuote. I am not familiar with their policies, but is a collection of quotes relating to Tim Russert's life and death a valid grouping?  Horologium  (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the assertion that the article is full of quotes, I went through and removed nearly all of the full quotes. Almost all that remain are snippets included in other text. Regarding the "obstructionist" accusation, is that really necessary? It was truly not my intent to be "obstructionist" with this, and I was only trying to find a way forward through compromise. S. Dean Jameson 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Obstructionist" may be too strong a word (with some overtones that are not intended) but it does convey the sense that I perceive this as a unnecessary delay. I'd prefer a final decision, rather than waiting six weeks and going through the whole thing again. Doing the same thing six weeks from now might lead to accusations of abuse of process, while doing it now (as an immediate result of the AFD and RFC) makes it clear to all involved that it's a single procedure.  Horologium  (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Friday, and others who agree with a merge.Catagraph (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I believe this article should go (and I believe there is consensus to do that) I would have no problem with a delay of this order. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

images
FYI, The images on this page (the example newspaper front page and the screen capture of Carville and Matalin breaking down on Meet the Press) have been tagged for deletion by an editor who has a problem with fair use of any non-free images. The deletion tags have been added and removed several times and the newspaper front page is now under deletion discussion and I suspect the MTP screen capture will end up there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs)


 * Another inaccurate description of what really occurred. When the article didn't exist, Angr tagged the images as orphaned. They were. You reverted the image tagging, though. When the article was recreated, Angr tagged the images as having the fair-use rationales disputed. Which is accurate, because he disputed the rationale. You reverted the image tagging, though, suggesting and IfD. And so Angr opened IfDs. I don't see what's wrong with that. Further, I don't know where you got the impression Angr is "an editor who has a problem with fair use of any non-free images". --  tariq abjotu  12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Tariqabjotu, and feel that Rtphokie's choice of words was not accidentally incendiary, a quick look at Angr's user page will confirm that he does not want fair-use images of any sort on Wikipedia. However, in this case (particularly the headline photo) Angr is right; there is no discussion of the newspaper article at all. The Carville/Matalin photo might be a bit more defensible, but it is a moot point if this article is merged as has been proposed.  Horologium  (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I do think Angr is correct as well. As for Angr's stance on fair-use images, I now can see how Rtphokie got that impression. However, the impression I got from Rtphokie's comment is that Angr's tagging had something to do with the fact that he doesn't like fair-use images. It might have, but I'm quite sure Angr's statement is akin to "I'll play by the rules for now, but I hope the rules are changed in the future". So I wouldn't think there was an ulterior motive behind any of Angr's fair-use taggings, whether I agree with his rationales on them or not. --  tariq abjotu  13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont get this constant search for motives. I'm not trying to create any impression.  The images are being openly discussed as a part of an IFD and this editor does take issue with Wikipedia's implementation of fair use policies, that's just the way it is.  I posted it here so everyone involved in discussion of this article would know of the IFDs and could weigh in. Personally I dont care these images stay or go but I do care that everyone has a chance to add their thoughts.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Constant search for motives? --  tariq abjotu  20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support merge, with one caveat
After careful consideration, I find myself supporting Carcharoth's idea of a "careful merge", with just one caveat. I'd like to reserve the right to work on this as a stand-alone article, as I still feel that -- on it's merits -- the media coverage this death received was notable in itself. Before placing the article in back in mainspace, I would consult with Carcharoth and a few others as to their thoughts on whether the article as I reconstructed it would be viable on its own. Is this an acceptable alternative? S. Dean Jameson 21:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections to my above proposal within 96 hours (by 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)), I recommend we proceed with the careful merging of the material from this article to the main one, without prejudice against re-creation in the future. S. Dean Jameson 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to give advice. Can't promise to be around in the next few days to help with any merger, though. Also, this talk page should be preserved or archived somewhere, and then this talk page restarted if the article is restored. Any proposal to recreate this as separate article later should be started at Talk:Tim Russert. Please don't ask me to judge that. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm against any "compromise". The result of "merge" has been reaffirmed. I'm not sure what standard protocol is for allowing recreation of articles after completed merges resulting from this level of discussion, but whatever it is, I'm against giving S. Dean (or anyone else) anything beyond that. Consensus has already been established and there's no reason to "compromise" between that and what S. Dean wants; nothing else on Wikipedia works like that. --  tariq abjotu  20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. What can one say to that? I thought Wikipedia was about community, compromise, and consensus-building. S. Dean Jameson 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the record, substantial numbers of editors weighed in on both sides of the debate, with a majority favoring "merge." This is why I crafted this compromise (where the "keep" side by FAR gives up the most) that I felt would placate both sides of the discussion. Are you saying you are simply intractable on this, and that if someone made the editorial decision to reinstate this article after some time that you would revert on sight? If so, that doesn't seem very Wiki at all. S. Dean Jameson 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me explain in greater detail because, as usual, you have put words in my mouth (if someone made the editorial decision to reinstate this article after some time that you would revert on sight?). When an article is deleted, the recourse for those who want it kept is to create an article that clearly includes substantial new information. When a move request or deletion request or a variety of other things fail, the recourse is to open a new request after a couple months (presuming not much changes). When a request for adminship fails, the person has to apply again later, and when one succeeds the candidate gets all the admin tools. There is no half-admin to appease dissenting participants. That's standard operating procedure; no "compromises" need to made. The decision is made firmly (no half-deletes, no "move to something in between"), but one can always try again later, especially if new developments allow for it. You don't appear to be asking for just the standard procedure. Instead, you want a deal on your own terms, where you get to consult hand-picked editors. Obviously, there are multiple editors who were against a merge (for what reason is still beyond me), but they are in the minority and heavily outweighed by those who advocated a merge or deletion. The result is "merge", not "merge on S. Dean's terms". --  tariq abjotu  07:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion about the content, not about me. "Merge" is an editorial decision, period. There is no consensus to delete this article, and (perhaps) the barest of consensus to "merge" it. (I don't understand where you get your "heavily outweighed" language. Three editors have weighed in per the RfC.) I'm not sure why you are taking such a hard line, toward me in this discussion. As a side note, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I asked you if you were saying what it appeared you were saying. Please quit personalizing this discussion. It's not about me and you, it's about what to do with this article. S. Dean Jameson 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what, never mind. We are talking past each other, and accomplishing absolutely nothing here. I'm unwatchilisting this, and letting others decide what to do with it. Best of luck to you Tariq, and I hope at some point bygones can be bygones. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still for the merger however I will not merge it since I rather leave it to someone who knows how to merge on what should be in it and what can be left out. Bidgee (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of turning this into a redirect at any time, since an appropriate amount of merging is already done. However I'm not going to redirect if this will just lead to another pointless edit war.  So, can we get some general agreement on doing the redirect?  Friday (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the redirect. No use having this article now since merging has happened (I thought the merge didn't happen but it has). Bidgee (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do the redirect, Friday. We can work more (or less) of the information from this article into the main article over the course of the next little while. Surely no one will complain if I perform this redirect. S. Dean Jameson 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ✅
 * I still oppose merging and redirecting, but if the cause is lost I won't waste any more time arguing about it. Everyking (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)