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.--AniMate 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). -- tariqabjotu 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). -- tariqabjotu 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. AniMate 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)

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)

"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. -- tariqabjotu 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. -- tariqabjotu 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. -- tariqabjotu 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. AniMate 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 most other western media 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. AniMate 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. -- tariqabjotu 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 Wikipedia: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)
• Scheißegal In prinicipal 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. AniMate 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. AniMate 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. -- tariqabjotu 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. AniMate 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 ⊖ 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)

How could I have missed the picture of the "miracle" Rainbow...... I hope a "miracle" happens and it gets deleted :) .--Reinoutr (talk) 13:08, 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 | 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 | Talk 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Because Wikipedia should comprehensively cover all notable things. Everyking (talk) 22:36, 24 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)

Fletcher's merge

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. AniMate 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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. -- tariqabjotu 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: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24. -- tariqabjotu 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)