Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes

Tim Russert tributes

The article was renamed on 06:07, 21 June 2008 to Reaction to Tim Russert's death‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyabbott (talk • contribs)

Tim Russert tributes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

• Keep Alternatively, merge back to Tim Russert. The article was created to unclutter the Tim Russert page and therefore should not be considered independent of that article. Whether or not this much coverage of tributes to Russert is warranted is a content question to be nutted out on this and the main article's talk pages, not AFD. Debate 木 07:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - coverage is voluminous and unlike other journalists in volume; compare Peter Jennings, for example. The nominators statement about an article "that details every condolence offered after his death" is pure hyperbole. Eyabbott (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, quite notable due to press coverage. Everyking (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge back to Tim Russert. We don't need to have an exhaustive list of tributes (akin to an "...in popular culture" article), but a brief section within the main article addressing reactions to his death is appropriate. I don't think we need an entire article for just this topic, but nuking it outright is not the appropriate solution. Horologium (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be recent coverage, but it is a huge amount of coverage. It is notable and not likely to change in the future. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More than the coverage of Princess Diana or Ronald Reagan, neither of whom get a 'tributes' article on Wikipedia? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you identify anybody who wants an article on Russert's tributes but not on tributes for people who received even more of them? This is a ridiculous argument. Everyking (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge, not an encyclopedic article - WP:NOT a memorial. Material is referenced, and appropriate to sit in the parent article (Tim Russert). Neıl 龱 11:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• The reactions to this person's death do seem to have been unusual and worthy of note on Tim Russert, probably with a bit of trimming as User:Tariqabjotu mentions. Trim-and-merging it back to a section in the main article seems best to me. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge plenty of references for a decent section within the Tim Russert article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now, eventual delete. Clearly Tim Russert, his passing, and tributes related to it, are notable now. I agree with the deletion nominator that this is recentism. I also agree with commentators above that some degree of merging and pruning is currently appropriate. I strongly suspect that we will come back in a few months time and decide that a small subset of these tributes bear mentioning in the Tim Russert article, and many others are no longer notable. If it has not by then already been done, merging the content from here and deleting the subarticle with this name will likely be noncontroversial. In the meanwhile, separating this content which would overwhelm the main article, but is referenced and notable at the present time and likely to be of interest to many readers, feels like sound editorial judgement. Recommend a closure of "no consensus" or "keep for now", without prejudice to renominating later. Martinp (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Once notable is always notable. Everyking (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Your comment prompted me to reread WP:NOTABLE. I don't buy the argument. We do say notability is not temporary, which I think means the "general conditions for notability" once met remain met, since they are focused on the existence of reliable independent sources. What this does not encompass is the latitude of editorial judgement, in that routinely things that felt like a big deal are much less notable (in the colloquial sense) later on and tend to be edited out. Our policy does immediately say that the general criteria only indicate a presumption of notability, and we all know consensus can change. If this article is kept now, I would not at all be surprised if a few months from now it is silently whittled down and merged and/or deleted, not due to dastardly consensus-violators skulking in the the biushes until peoples' attention goes elsewhere, but by natural evolution of editorial judgement. Anyway, soapbox mode off. Martinp (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge My sympathy and condolences to Tim Russert's friends and family. However Wikipedia is not a memorial. A look at Wikipedia coverage of much more prominent people who died (Ronald Reagan, Princess Diana) will show that they don't have 'tribute' pages. Wikipedia is not a repository for all the information in the world - some of it belongs elsewhere and memorials like this are exactly the kind of thing that belongs elsewhere. We don't have Wikipedia articles on 9/11 victims (unless notable in some other way) for exactly that reason. Incidentally notability is not temporary so if this isn't going to be notable in a month then it isn't notable now.

The level of coverage in the Tim Russert article as it is now is probably appropriate. If this article were to be simply redirected to the main article that would be fine. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Nakon 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the most notable of these with the main article and delete this one. I agree WP:NOT a memorial. It would be interesting to add to the main article a (sourced) discussion as to why Russert's death had such a wide impact when his career was much shorter than that of, say, Jim McKay whose death went virtually unnoticed. 23skidoo (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not a memorial. What next - tribute pages for every dead celeb, TV personality, etc? ukexpat (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The coverage/tributes that have been devoted to Russert's death have been notable on their own, and the section in the main article was becoming unwieldy. I feel deleting because a person doesn't like this kind of article is a bad idea. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Since Wikipedia is not a memorial. Alternatively, Smerge (selectively merge) a few of the better statements about his merit or significance by world leaders to his bio article, to provide context on his importance. The nonstop coverage has bordered on Mourning sickness since he is no more dead and no more missed by his friends and family than thousands of other people who die every week. Edison (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  It was not intended as a "memorial", but rather as a way of addressing the extraordinary coverage of his death. Many people here are using "not a memorial" as a reason for deletion, when the article was not intended as a memorial of any kind. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Selective merge of key points to the main article. While it's obvious there was quite a lot of support of Russert shown after his death, a "tributes" article is kind of taking our coverage too far. I think this would be more effective if included in the main article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  That ignores the problem that led to the creation of the TRt article in the first place. The article was becoming cluttered with all the tributes/memorials/responses to his death. This is the best solution, at least for now. Nothing written here has yet refuted that. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The number of tributes currently in the main article is more than enough. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Last time: it's not about the number of tributes, it's about the notability of the fact that there has been an unprecedented outpouring of coverage (in the form of media coverage, tributes, memorials, and official statements) of this death. I really wish people would stop with the red herring arguments. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

S. Dean, I don't think anyone here disagrees that this man's death has drawn statements from a surprising number of high-ranking or well-known figures. The point is that an entire article is not needed to make that point. -- tariqabjotu 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and merge After someone dies there is a flurry of activity on their article. The argument that the article had become to cluttered is a bad one, considering he died less than a week ago. It's high profile and morbidly exciting right now, but in a few weeks the excitement surrounding this article will wane and experienced editors will pare down the quotes about his death to a reasonable number. Undoubtedly, a link to Wikiquote for the full list of tributes will be added as well. Finally, if this is kept it sets a bad precedent for future "Tributes to ..." articles for both past and future deaths. AniMate 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No need to merge -- there is already a lengthy description of tributes and the effect on the media in Russert's main article. Overall this is a mawkish and embarrassing article. Note that the article should be named "Tribute to Tim Russert," (without the 's' in "Tributes" because it is primarily a tribute to him. The large majority of it is not about the tributes at all, but just quotes from various tributes to honor their subject. Those portions that actually are about the tributes (rather than simply using the tributes as an excuse to proffer quotes about Russert) have little or no sourcing. Fletcher (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I agree that WP:RECENT applies to this. I don't think that "an unprecedented outpouring of coverage" is notable, nor is it particularly surprising that Tim Russert's fellow journalists would use news time to speak about one of their own during a time of shock and sorrow. As Fletcher points out, some of the more memorable tributes are included in the main article. Add whatever you think is important, but we don't need articles about the praise that is inevitably given for beloved celebrities. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Trim and merge into Tim Russert, we're not a memorial but there's not anything inherently unencyclopedic about some mention of the tributes either. Thanks, Naerii - Talk 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge back into Tim Russert, per above. The "delete and merge" rationale given above makes the GFDL cry, by the way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Tim Russert and edit down. Much of what it here and what is in Tim Russert is repetitive. --Crunch (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, Illegal Content Fork (WP:CFORK) Article is not an encyclopedic topic. Needs to be merged with Tim Russert. Everyone just have some patience and work out a consensus in the Tim Russert article. I don't know of anyone who wants to have a long, extended tribute section that overwhelms the article. Most people either want a tribute section or nothing. We can work on that and not have a content fork. Presumptive (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To sum up: we can't vote "no", but we can vote "yes" in any language we like? Everyking (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: the topic could be broadened a bit and might be more acceptable to those who feel it's unencyclopedic if it were instead titled "reactions to the death of Tim Russert". Obviously the reactions are mostly or entirely tributes, but it would have less of a "memorial" feel. Everyking (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That would not be acceptable to me. It's not about giving it the right feel, but about having quality articles! And the subject matter is just not notable or significant to merit an article: when someone dies, people react, and if a public figure dies, other public figures react to express their grief and condolences. There's no reason to compile and catalog every such expression. Fletcher (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming something of a farce.Those who wish to have this deleted aren't even interested in solving the underlying problem that led me to create the page: the tributes section of the main article was becoming long and cluttered. I tried to improve the encyclopedia by creating a stand-alone article for the tributes or "reactions" to Russert's death. Then, when Everyking tries to come up with a viable alternative to deletion, Fletcher hops in to say no, that the only acceptable alternative is straight deletion. If positions are that hardened, what's the point of this discussion? I'm very disappointed that it appears that those vying for deletion (or the semantically different, but practically identical "merging") are not even willing to consider alternative solutions. Very disappointing, indeed. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm obviously opening myself up for a world of hurt but, can you please explain why you feel that merge is "semantically different, but practically identical" to deletion? And why you feel those that "voted" merge are "not even willing to consider alternative solutions"? Because, I thought by saying merge I was considering an alternative solution to deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's "practically identical" because to "merge" the articles, the article in question must be deleted, and then the section on the tributes will be vastly pared down. How is that -- for practical purposes -- any different than simply deleting the article? Working for an alternative would include things like renaming the current article, or perhaps restructuring it in some way that makes it less like a "memorial" for those who view it that way currently. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you didn't mean it but, the "not even considering" thing came across like you were accusing me (and others). Merging to me is the prefered option because it means keeping some of the content of this article (but, ensuring it is in the correct place) as opposed to deleting it and losing everything. I'm sorry you look at it differently but, would appreciate yourself and others not making such generalised statements in future (admittedly I may have taken it more personally than it was meant). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was created so that there could still be a place to document the extensive coverage of Russert's death, while keeping the main article free from clutter. To trim and merge is practically speaking, no different than just deleting it. This has been my point all along. The "mergers" and "deleters" aren't willing to try to reach a compromise on the existence of some type of article documenting the extensive response to Russert's death. That response is notable in itself, simply because of it's size and scope. Compare this reaction to the reaction at Jennings' death. It's without precedent, which makes the reaction itself notable, and worthy of an article, instead of an overlong section in the main article. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

S. Dean Jameson, you are I think under the misapprehension that everyone here agrees with you that all the quotes currently in this article need to be preserved. I don't believe that is the case. Even if the number of tributes is unprecedented, we can report that by writing "an unprecedented number of tributes was made", not by quoting each one of them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The best way to deal with a long and cluttered main article section would be to trim it down to size, keeping a sampling of what people said about Russert while noting the coverage was more extensive. So my underlying disagreement is that most of the subject matter doesn't belong on Wikipedia; while the tributes are testament to Russert's notability, they are not themselves notable and can be summarized on the main article. Fletcher (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're cutting this too fine, Fletcher. The words themselves may or may not be notable - some are more than others perhaps - but the fact that they were said, by such a wide range of notable people, in considerably more than a perfunctory way, is certainly notable and to not include the statements is unnecessarily narrow. I also note that we're not including each one of them as been implied above. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence the tributes are notable. As I've said, they confer notability on Russert but not themselves. Expressions of condolences are common and unremarkable, and it's to be expected that the death of a highly prominent person would garner condolences from many other prominent people. As WP is not a memorial site or a directory, we don't create compilations of tributes any time a notable person dies. But this is just my opinion. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps there is something notable about these tributes. This article does nothing to prove it. It aptly describes the tributes by quoting extensively from them, but has no analysis or independent sourcing explaining their significance. Fletcher (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notable event, much coverage - this page isn't a memorial, it is reporting of a phenomenon that occurred, that is of note. I agree with Dean Jameson's points. Tvoz/talk 17:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- Celebrities, newscasters, and the POTUS paying their wishes? - notable enough. miranda 18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This is the best way to keep this stuff from cluttering up the main article. In a few months, when this is no longer topical, we can revisit and perhaps delete. john k (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Most definitely recentism. Merge what will be important a year from now (i.e. quotes from 3-4 people) into the main article and then delete this. I know he was deeply respected but this is very Amerocentric. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but when did "Amerocentric" become a reason for article deletion? There are hundreds, no- thousands, of articles that thrive that have exactly 0% to do with America, and they aren't challenged on that basis. Tvoz/talk 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You completely ignored the remainder of Woohookitty's statement. -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't - recentism is certainly a reasonable rationale, but Amerocentric is not, in my view, and I said so. If it was just a gratuitous comment, it had no place here. Tvoz/talk 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not a "gratuitous comment" and there was zero reason to think that was case. You commented on one part of the comment, and ignored the rest. If you think Woohookitty's delete statement based on the other points is okay, why does the "Amerocentric" piece matter anyway? -- tariqabjotu 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And you complained that it was nothing more than a memorial, then when I moved it to a more appropriate article name, you moved it back. I'd like all arguing for deletion (or "merging") to note that one side is trying to work for an amicable solution, while the other is simply digging into their position without consideration of compromise. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tariq, I'm not here to reply to everything that everyone says, but I saw a comment that appeared to be an irrelevant point to the discussion, so I said so. I commented at first on the part of the objection that seemed out of process to me - "Amerocentric" not being a valid reason for delete in my view. To unpack: I am asking whoever closes this discussion to not take "Amerocentric" into consideration because I believe it is not a valid cause. If "Amerocentric" was gratuitous, then it should not have been here. If it was not gratuitous, as you say, then I say again that it is not a valid reason for deletion. Continuing: I did not, at first, comment on "recentism" because although I don't agree with the argument, I do think it is a valid thing to raise. Obviously I don't agree with Woohoo's position, which is why I had previously stated my own. To flesh it out: we regularly include material about recent events. Whether we think of ourselves as a news source or not, people do come here for information, and I don't think that's something we can ignore. The phenomenon of the response to the death was surprising and seems to be significant, and I believe we should have a place for people to learn more about it. Along those lines, I think that Dean's change of title was a helpful edit that I support. Whether the article ultimately will pass the test of time is of course unknown, and the subject can be re-visited sometime down the road if editors have a problem with it later on. But for now I think the 'recentism' argument should be set aside. Further, WP:RECENT is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it can be considered, but it's hardly revolutionary to ignore it, and it itself says "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". So, I did not particularly feel the need to spell all of this out in responding to Woohoo's point, but since you asked, I have. Hope this clarifies. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tariq took it upon himself to move the article back to the improperly titled one. It makes the red herring argument that it's only a memorial more cogent if it's titled "Tim Russert tributes", I guess. It's sad that we can't work together to make the article better, instead of simply digging in the trenches, and thwarting even attempts to smooth out the issues that some have raised for deletion (or "merging"). S. Dean Jameson (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is indeed a red herring, as those people arguing for deletion have objected to the substance and notability of the article, not what it's titled. For all your talk of amicable resolutions and compromise, you appear unwilling to make an actual compromise on the content. Further, Tariq's edit summary claimed he objected to your "move in the midst of AfD." I don't know if he was right or wrong to revert you, but I too found it surprising that an article would be moved before its AfD was resolved. I'm not sure what the protocol is. But to say he had an ulterior motive and actually wanted the "Tributes" title back because that makes it easier to delete is to say he was lying in his edit summary. So you are not compromising and assuming bad faith on the part of editors who disagree with you. Please, try to practice what you preach. Fletcher (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Believe what you want about my motives. Everything I've done thus far in the mainspace has been to try to make the project better. I'm very unclear how deleting this article (and reverting to an improperly titled version) does that, but if an argument can be made that it does better the project, I'm open to hearing it. And the only red herring here is being presented by those claiming this was only created to serve as some kind of memorial to Russert. I won't accuse someone of assuming bad faith, though, as that seems unfair. I believe that Tariq thinks that deleting this article will somehow better the project. It's simply my contention that his thought processes--and yours, for that matter--are completely wrong-headed, and would actually do harm (however slight) to the project. That's why I argue so vigorously--and object so strongly to the red herrings being flopped around--against deletion of this article. There's just no convincing evidence that deleting the article improves the project in any way. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)