Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes

Just for the record
Fletcher attempted an out-of-process merge, even after the AfD was closed as "no consensus." This is completely unacceptable. S. Dean Jameson 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the closing admin's statement? A  ni  Mate  23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The closing statement is out of line. "No consensus to delete" defaults to "keep." Period. "Selectively merging" is no different than "delete." Period. THis will go to AN/I if you guys don't stop. S. Dean Jameson 23:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad that you have such a strong grip on all of intricacies of the AfD process, considering you've been contributing for less than a month. Personally, I disagree with Sandstein that an AfD cannot be closed as merge, but perhaps that should be discussed at DRV. Regardless, considering the voting rationale, there does appear to be a pretty clear consensus to merge the article. A  ni  Mate  23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. (from the AfD page) A  ni  Mate  23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote all you like. There was no consensus to merge either. Sandstein somehow took an evenly divided debate, and magically divined that there was consensus to merge. BS. S. Dean Jameson 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote S. Dean Jameson:So you say "delete" (well, "merge", but it's the exact same thing). If you look at the totality of the delete/merge votes consensus is clear. A  ni  Mate  23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which was denied at the time. But never mind that. Even using that standard, it's 21-14 (or thereabouts). That's not even REMOTELY close to "consensus to merge." S. Dean Jameson 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote, so the numbers themselves don't matter. A lot of the people writing keep were at least speculating about merging too; the concern about size seemed to be raised a few times, but I think some trimming is in order anyway (there's a strange wistful bit about a rainbow I want to fix...).  I don't believe merges are like deletes, I'd say it's more like keeping.  The information is still there, after all, it's just a question of what title it's stored under.  If you still think it shouldn't be merged, there is always deletion review, but I'm not sure it's worth the energy. :-)  (As an aside, this is why I don't like putting a bold vote on my debate comments, it just seems to confuse people whenever it's not a straight yes/no question; this one had two "keep and delete" votes!) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  09:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A substantial majority in favour of merging, and the arguments are definitely in favour. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)