This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below.This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -SimonP 02:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

A woman ran away. Doesn't the U.S. get thousands of these a year? How exactly is this a significant article for an encyclopedia? -Ta bu shi da yu03:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- but add a section on racism.Jennifer Wilbanks: Racism An Integral Part Of Her Story

• Keep - receive national media attention whether we like it or not. Wikipedia's not paper and we should be an almanac of reported events when newservices archive and charge for theirs.Samw03:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but we don't document every event that happened in the media. Do we document even obscure national media events? That's wikinews' job you know. -Ta bu shi da yu03:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have endless room to document all sorts of things.Kingturtle04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I don't care about space as I never said this. I merely want to point out that every national media story is not notable or encyclopedic! -Ta bu shi da yu06:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, "not every national media story is notable or encyclopedic." With that revision, TBSDY is correct.Weak delete or merge tomedia circus.Barno17:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ms. Wilbanks's escape received national attention.Jendeyoung03:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am so sick hearing about that woman. With all the press coverage, the media treats her like she discovered radioactivity. She's already ruined most of my news magazine shows with the recent advent of 'jilted at the alter' stories. The news keeps wondering what kind of punishment she will receive for lying to the police and irritating so many people.Delete this stupid article. She's plain annoying and dumb and is definitely NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. If anyone had any sense in their head, they wouldDelete this news trash before she starts polluting Wikipedia.Ome03:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reason for deletion should NOT be that you are sick of it. Also, the fact that it is all over your favorite news magazine shows justifies that this article should be kept.Kingturtle04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm sick of the Iraq war, but that's notable. -Ta bu shi da yu07:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She may be prosecuted... or may not - either way, people living a thousand miles away with no connection to the case will be upset over it. -- BDAbramson^thimk 03:39, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is such a non-story. Wikipediashould not have an article on everything that thereality soap channels broadcast. This woman does not deserve her own article unless it's in the User: namespace. It is nothing more than an invasion of privacy.→Vik Reykja03:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invasion of privacy? She might be indicted. She is an adult who made choices.Kingturtle04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • She has done nothing to merit as much attention as she is getting. Do we want to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid?→Vik Reykja04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • She faked something and got national media attention. So didAnna Ayala, and we have an article for her. Wikipedia has all sorts of articles about hoaxes, missing people, and victims.Kingturtle 04:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC) P.S.Mary Toft lied and said she gave birth to rabbits. It is not unusual for wikipedia to have articles about people whose claim to fame is that they lied.Kingturtle04:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to defend this article but here are some U.S.-centric non-murder tabloid stories that have Wikipedia articles:Elizabeth Smart,Mary Kay Letourneau, andParis Hilton. --Chill Pill Bill05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also,Tawana Brawley, similar kidnapping hoax. —Wahoofive (talk)05:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is significant because there was a nation-wide search that involved the FBI. It is also significant because she reported that her kidnapper was hispanic.Kingturtle04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This event and its unusual circumstances are at least as notable as many other one-shot events that are in Wikipedia. --Cecropia |explains it all ®03:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since this search made national news for over a week in the United States. You may not like the media's priorities (I certainly don't) but your complaint should be to the media, not this article.Firebug04:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't assume you know my motives for listing this VfD. I merely listed it because I didn't think it was signficant or notable. I seem to be wrong. -Ta bu shi da yu04:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I absolutely hate this story which is why I stir clear from the U.S. 24 hours cable news channels because they always talked about her...24/7 in the recent weeks. It is in the U.S. news headlines so it is keep. We have anAmy Fisher article and her story is similar to Jennifer Wilbanks because of the "soap opera" type news story. --Chill Pill Bill04:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable because of level of media attention. Over 6,000 Google News hits and article is in pretty good shape.Capitalistroadster04:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her fifteen minutes of fame are up, and this was a complete non-story to begin with outside the US. Nobody except maybe Jay Leno or Jon Stewart is going to remember her in six months. --Calton |Talk04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It got moderate-to-heavy coverage in Canada. (Keep.)Samaritan12:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Boy. I hate having an article on this subject, but if somebody could work on the story as sensation, and not just on her non-notable biography, then I voteweak keep.RickK 05:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable newsmaker, even though it was stupid news.Aerion//talk06:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The issue isn't whether she merits the attention she's gotten (I agree she doesn't). For an objective encyclopedia, the issue is that she has in fact gotten the attention, and hence become notable. In addition to her own notability, the article will give the reader a good example of the nauseating superficiality of the mass media in the U.S.JamesMLane06:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, media attention makes this notable, so long as it is kept NPOV (none of the recent "wilbanked" slang terms which we VfD recently please).Megan196706:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't understand why people are voting to keep this article. National attention is given to non-consequential things all the time which are not article worthy. She is not an important enough figure to warrant having an encyclopedia article. If the article is to be kept it should be to highlight the ridiculous "issues" that the media in the U.S concerns itself with so that people will forget more important problems, like the economy and the war in Iraq.Comment made by24.193.227.161
• I wish there were some place we could merge this article, likeInexplicable media phenomena about stupid non-events#Jennifer Wilbanks. Until then,keep.sɪzlæk [+t,+c ] 08:06, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiNews.Radiant_* 08:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Robneild08:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepRogerd12:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Currently going through her 15 minutes of fame, and no real reason why she can't have an article here too. However, I advise a re-VfDing after 2 years to determine whether she's well-remembered enough to keep an entry on.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 12:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--just one more reason never to get your news through television. I read the newspaper, and it took me days to figure out who this woman was, because I'd just skip the article. It was blissful.Meelar(talk) 14:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh come on!!!10qwerty15:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Questions of "importance" are inherently POV. The only question that matters is verifiability and this story, for reasons I personally find inexplicable, has become easily verifiable. -SimonP 18:03, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - story has been reported internationally and in the context of a phenomenon rather than limited to this individualSydney Morning Herald 8 May - more than 5 minutes of fame --AYArktos21:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• May I just make the comment, if this is significant, can we add the reasons why it is significant to the article's lead section? -Ta bu shi da yu04:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the intro already says "sparked a nationwide search" and that she "claimed falsely that she had been kidnapped." what else do you want to add?Kingturtle04:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps something on the lines of the extreme U.S. media attention she received and the reason they were so interested? I'm not American, this didn't seem notable. Had I known why it was so notable, I wouldn't have listed the article on VfD. -Ta bu shi da yu04:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to see what makes this "issue" encyclopedic. It belongs in wikinews at best.→Vik Reykja04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A google search for "Jennifer Wilbanks" retrieves 162,000.Kingturtle04:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So?→Vik Reykja04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sort of a significance barometer.Kingturtle04:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This article probably should stay; however, it needs to focus on why this particular case has caused so much media attention, as opposed to the hundreds of other "milk carton" cases which occur each year around the world. Plus, can we possibly find a better picture? I almost died of fright when I first viewed the article. --Jquarry05:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All her pictures look like this. she is not photogenic.Kingturtle05:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. That is so true. The comedians are having a field day talking about her scary eyes.RickK 05:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Even her requisite eBaytoast andpeeps are scary-looking.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 12:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. If it turns out, years from now, that this person/story is interesting, unique, and important enough to warrant its own encyclopedia article, it can be addedthen. Until that happens, this is just another grossly sensationalized news story, which means it belongs at Wikinews, not on Wikipedia. (If we must keep the article here, can I request that we get rid of the googly-eyed picture? Yeesh.)android↔talk 13:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although certainly worth putting in Wikinews too, since she's become quite a "celebrity" in the American news. It's not so much "news" as a detailed account of what happened. Will be of interest to someone.Jamyskis 14:17, 11 May 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -- she won't do that again. ;) -Longhair |Talk13:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you can be *certain* of this, because ... ? --Simon Cursitor14:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • VfDs aren't article space, so we can fairly speculate...Samaritan15:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -- This story is notable in Wikipedia only for the ludicrous levels of media attention it got. It's not just a wikinews article "woman runs from wedding;" It'sBaby Jessica for the new millenium. She is not in herself notable and should not have an in depth biography in this article. I am not sure how many of the elements of the story need to be there. We may want discussion of what made this story have wings in the first place: recentmedia circuses including Micheal Jackson, Pope, and Terry Schaivo. Other jolts in the arm for the story included 'hispanic' accusations, the ebay toast, statistics on incidence ofcold feet, and the recent news office innovation of discussing whether people who make false accusations should be given jail time.conspiracy theorists among us may suspect other reasons for all the noisy hype over something so inane. -- only n4 vfd, 2 for transwiki, and 20+ for keep... I think this is becoming an obviouskeep.MPS16:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Btw, I've added to the introduction to the article the paragraph: "Wilbanks gained national fame and notoriety in the United States, and her story persisted as a major topic of national news coverage well after she was found and her safety assured. Many critics of themass media attacked this as amedia circus.Samaritan18:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Disgust at the reasons for the attention she received is a not reason to exclude the article. We are not in the business of deciding whatought to have been newsworthy in the first place. --Decumanus 20:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• keep I agree. It doesn't matter if her reasons for notability are justified, she is clearly notable.Brighterorange21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article satisfies the following: It is known to many people; it is well written; and it is accurate. IMHO that justifies its inclusion in the Wikipedia. Do I care about some dumb American broad who does a runner? Hell no. But I also don't care about some warlord in Sierra Leone or the final score of the 1911 world series, and yet these are all "Wiki-worthy" material. --Jquarry21:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of interest,why is she notable? By your reasoning,I should have an article because I wrote theexploding whale article. -Ta bu shi da yu02:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepMcfly8522:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, she appears to have achieved some degree of fame and notoriety.Kappa23:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Move to Wikinews anddelete. If anyone remembers this in a year from now it shall be kept then.--Nabla 00:05, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Merge toCold feet. This is my reasoning: this woman is a good (and notable) example of this wedding term/act. We can have a small section in the main article about her and what she did to run away, but I do not think that she will last long on Wikipedia once time fades away. One week ago, I wanted smash my tv once I heard her name. But one year from now, few people will ever care about this woman, unless she does something stupid again. If she did not ran away, she would have not been known to us.Zscout370(talk)01:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable Bride.Great Wikipedia Paper Shortage.Klonimus02:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with every other bride who ran away I suppose? And this has nothing to do with lack of space, so don't use that one on me. -Ta bu shi da yu04:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. Being a bride usually is not enough to justify a wikipedia article. However, this was a national story, it involves a hoax, and it may also involve a tacit racism on Wilbanks' part.Kingturtle04:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Racist part? You mean when she blamed the kid-napping on Latinos?Zscout370(talk)04:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, either in her delusions or in her effort to create a believeable story - she invented one of her captors as being Hispanic. It reminds me ofSusan Smith.Kingturtle04:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no one will remember her when the mass media finds another story.Sensation00210:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia documentsMary Toft,Steve Brodie,Wilhelm Voigt,Princess Caraboo,Binjamin Wilkomirski,Spring Heeled Jack. We have all sorts of articles about different stories of bafoonery. They are good stories - and so is Wilbanks'.Kingturtle15:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would not be surprised if this article is put on VFD again once the furor dies out over time.Zscout370(talk)14:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why we should try to purge such information. We still have theDouglas Corrigan article, and his15 minutes came 30 years before Andy Warhol coined the phrase.JamesMLane15:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly so. In response toTa bu shi da yu above, I reiterate this issue is known to many people. Much other obscure minutiae is accepted as part of Wikipedia content, such as, say, exploding whales, so why not this as well? As for including an article about yourself, if you feel you are known well enough around the world, then go for it. --Jquarry21:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I might just add that all this commentary and opining has comsumed more time and disk space than the original article would ever have done. Perhaps we should just get rid of it and be done. If anyone cares in a year's time, then let them redo it. --Jquarry21:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jquarry: Perhaps we should set a wikipedia policy that when 85% of people vote tokeep an article, then what we should do is actuallydelete that article. But you do raise a good point -- even though wikipedia disk space is unlimited, I have a finite time on this earth, and this time would be better spent editing important articles likemedia circus than pontificating on obscurefnords like wilbanks VFD.MPS22:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one's asking you to editJennifer Wilbanks.Kingturtle22:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This VFD is another reason why I have to shake my head and go back intomy self-imposed exile.Zzyzx11(Talk)22:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment made by an overlyWikistressed user with over 5690 edits[1] who recently left the project when contributing became no fun.
  • You make it sound like I put this up for VfD as a personal grudge against you! I have no idea who you are. -Ta bu shi da yu23:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because she was on the news, and theres a photo and everything. Seriously this is why we need moreWikipedia:Article review and less VFD. -SV|t00:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This item reminds me of a section from thePeople's Almanac, published long ago in the 1970s: "Some 9-Day Wonders -- on the Tenth Day". However (reviewing that section as I type), each item describes the reason for the notoriety, the media circus that followed, & where the person is now. This article lacks that kind of treatment, which would then make it a "Keep" in my eyes. --llywrch00:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Mike H 02:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.teresateng 21:38, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This sort of trivial nonsense does not belong on Wikipedia. This story is a giant blob of nothing in a sea of nothingness. Hundreds of civilians are killed in the Middle East and Central Asia along with kidnappings of various people & etc and this nonsense story with no merit or value is what most American households are worried about. This soul-sucking culture-eating demon of anti-thought should be eradicated before it threatens to infect us all with an inane sense of seeking the milquetoast epitome of vicarious passionately confused maleficence and socially destructive fantasies of banality and violence born of boredom and neglect. --Xaliqen 23:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Naturally, I understand how the argument goes thatbecause she received such massive media attention she should receive an article, and, though I do hold many reservations about that line of reasoning in this particular instance, I would tend to agree with the idea. However, the length of the current article seems far too long to be justifiable given the importance of the subject-matter. I feel that I must revise my previously expressed sentiments on the matter and suggest that, even though I personally despise pretty much everything surrounding this whole issue, it should have its own article so long as it is short. I don't see why a picture is necessary in the article. In any event, my personal sentiments are still that it should be deleted entirely, but, in the interests of the necessarily-principled foundations of Wikipedia, I will not contend with those who would seek to include it on the basis of a certain notoriety. Again, I would like to express how I feel that the relevancy and importance of the subject-matter is not nearly great enough to justify the current length and depth of the article. --Xaliqen00:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't dictate what's interesting. (I spoke too rashly before. I'm sorry.) --VKokielov01:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a sub-heading in a media topic. Mass media was slow to pick up on the racial stereotyping, did they all take their clue fromPoynter that week?
• Delete As a television free Canadian I don't get the relevance of this story and the article itself does nothing to clarify it. A woman ran away, she's got some issues. Hmm, sure glad I know that. As a few people mentioned this might have some value as part of a media circus article or somesuch but I hardly think it's weighty enough to merit a seperate heading of it's own. There's just nothing novel, interesting or memorable about this story. Does anyone seriously think that in 6 months (let alone 10 years) kids will be digging through Wikipedia for information on Jennifer Wilbanks for history reports? This is typical short term media frenzy crap. Of course maybe somebody can rewrite the article to illustrate the relevance and I'll change my mind.Gabe07:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI can't believe CNN gives so much time to every missing person, runaway watever and people murdered chosen at random from the ones who die each day. Even the international CNN does this, it's pointless, Wiki should not go down to the same level.

--138.253.235.11915:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.Please do not edit this page.