Deletion of Tim Russert tributes

Comment: Wikipedia is |not a memorial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Wow, hard to believe that this one is still going on.  I'm sure that the final decision will be "no consensus", default to keep, as rendered by whichever unfortunate administrator gets the assignment.  I hope that whoever does take this will comment on  in announcing the decision.  Wikipedia's ban on memorials is one of its better policies; in effect, it says that nobody, no matter how "notable", rates a separate article about the reaction to their death.  Whether someone is "utterly notable" is a moot point if all memorials are barred.  If the decision is "keep", please don't make it for a wishy-washy reason like "no consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: This is exactly the sort of recentism that #NEWS is intended to keep out of Wikipedia. And creating articles on unencyclopedic subjects is not the way to stop people adding unencyclopedic information to other articles - we have mechanisms such as recent changes patrol, semi-protection and protection for that, depending on how serious the problem is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: Notable event that has received plenty of coverage.  The new article seems encyclopedic.  Finally,  is just an essay, and not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: This section was very necessary to maintain , thanks for adding it.   I added commentary from a Washington Post writer as well criticizing the volume of coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per above.  I agree that  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: not an encyclopedic article -  a memorial.  Material is referenced, and appropriate to sit in the parent article (Tim Russert
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)