Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runaway bride case

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Nomination by banned user. Darkspots (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway bride case[edit]

Runaway bride case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is really the 3d nomination for this, as the first two were under a different name. however, now that this incident is three years past us, I think consensus will coalesce into deletion as this topic is clearly insignificant and not fitting for a serious encyclopedia. SEB Chapman (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Notability does not expire, as you can see from many other Afds. --Kickstart70TC 07:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if we can have an article on Egyptian heiroglyphics, the rape of Lucrece, or sitcoms from the 1950s, then we demonstrate that it's not the current popularity of a topic that leads something to be notable. Once the media frenzy dies down, the notability or non-notability crystallizes; it doesn't die down along with the frenzy. I remember this really well. It was covered ad nauseam in the media, and is a great example of Missing White Woman Syndrome. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not usually keen on articles about media circus events, but the end of the article clearly shows this has had an impact (and is therefore notable). It sparked the creation of an action figure, a hot sauce and a musical. Together with the fact it was reported in highly reliable publications makes this a keep in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep- The situation was notable. I'd say more, but the others above me have already covered everything I'd want to. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This was very notable three years ago, and notability does not expire. I understand the nominator's view that this is not, in retrospect, historically significant, but I disagree. The real-life "runaway bride" will continue to be mentioned as a cautionary tale during wedding preparations, long after the name of the person has been forgotten. But more importantly, the media coverage of the story in 2005 continues to be a cautionary tale for journalists [1] about the difference between "junk journalism" (or "slow news day") and hard news. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Runaway_bride_case&oldid=1069501788"