Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Comment: Despite quite a lot of back and forth and shifting consensus, comparison of the article from when it first came to this AfD and now clearly shows a massively improved article. Pigman ☿ 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - previous AFD closed no consensus and in the intervening months there has been no attempt whatsoever to address the problems. The article remains an indiscriminate collection of unrelated items which have no commonality beyond happening to include the words "Jayne Mansfield" in some capacity. There is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence. This does not mean that a list of every time someone says "Jayne Mansfield" on TV or in a book is encyclopedic. "Someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'" is not a theme. "Someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'" is not a unifying element. Otto4711 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions.   —Becksguy (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Songs that sing the praise of Mansfield, a book that has her as a character, a film character who plays her character... and a lots reference to the highlights of her life and career (i.e. breasts and the accident). Someone said Jayne Mansfield? Well, I didn't hear someone saying Otto4711 or Aditya as often in popular culture. Have you noticed that a lot of "In popular culture..." articles are laid out in list-form? Obviously, the binding factors are the subjects of those articles (check Absinthe in popular culture for an acute example). You would be very right if you said the article is very underdeveloped. Yes it is. People have not got around to developing it much. But, I am sure we are not going to delete all the stub and start class articles right away. Are we? Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is anyone suggesting that all stub or start class articles be deleted? No? Then why bring that up when it has no relevance? As for a comparison to the absinthe article, the existence of that or any other article does not justify the existence of this article. Nor does the number of times any other person is referred to in popular culture. Untold numbers of Lists of songs about... have been deleted so that portion of the list is even more suspect. The point still stands that if the only thing that these things have in common is mentioning Jayne Mansfield's name then they bear absolutely no encyclopedic relationship to each other. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a fallacy to suggest that we should keep this article because Jayne Mansfield is mentioned more often in popular culture than two Wikipedia editors. Whether or not all the bulleted items in this article relate to a single object (JM, in this example) is irrelevant because, at the end of the day, they are still an unconnected list of random facts which meet the definition of WP:TRIVIA. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Selectively merge back into Jayne Mansfield, and preserve the rest of the information collected here on a subpage of the talk page (and make a link on Talk:Jayne Mansfield to let editors know it is there) for the future reference. As I see it, these things turn into lists because too many editors are intimidated from using their own brains by overbroad readings of WP:SYN. IMO it would be perfectly acceptable to add running text to the Jayne Mansfield article that uses this material.  ("Jayne Mansfield's breasts were made the subject of humor in . . . . (citations to those appearances follow).  Her death in an automobile accident is alluded to in a number of books and films, including. . . . (citations follow)").  Any guideline that pretends to prohibit analytical ways of dealing with the material is no guideline at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons I gave earlier this season. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * GRC, as that closed no consensus, some people still ned convincing, so so some further argument would be helpful. DGG (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per Smerdis of Tlön only what is currently sourced. Everything else could go to the talkpage pending sourcing and verification.  I really see no good reason to split this out from the main article, but especially not in an poorly sourced and arranged list.--Isotope23 talk 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - no extra value found in this entry, better to merge it in Jayne Mansfield--NAHID 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "One of the great american iconic sex figures, used as a symbol in a notable way. The suggestion to turn this into text is a good one, but it can and should be done in this very article, since there is enough content. sourcing is needed in any case, and equally should be possible--the requirement is sourceable, not sourced. First i ever heard of "added value" as a concept in notability. DGG (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Her notability justifies an article about her. It does not justify a list of every time her name is mentioned in any medium. Otto4711 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Jayne Mansfield or, if this is not possible, Delete. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Indiscriminate collection of unrelated facts? Indeed. Most, if not all, "In popular culture..." articles would be that, by the standard of the nomination here. The Absynthe article was just an example, if you want more you are obviously welcome to the category page. A category of articles may have one set of standards (if it doesn't disagree with core standards) which may not be measured by another categories standards. Will someone then try questioning the entire category instead of hitting on one particular article? The argument of deleting stub and start class articles came to question the reasoning that the article have not developed since the last nomination.
 * "This article haven't developed fast enough" can't be a reason for deletion. If "there is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence", then the article needs to be developed, not deleted. It is a fallacy to start deleting articles on copywriting quality or format (list or prose). It also shows a not-good intention to find out a weak spot in another person's argument and using it to render that person's entire argument invalid. Though it is more preferable to have prose over lists, I really don't see how this list is of unconnected facts. Since this doesn't fail notability, or neutrality, and has the scope for appropriate verification. Please, read WP:NOT beyond the header, and find out that it holds nothing against this articles. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:NOT from the start all the way through to the end, so no need for your condescension, thanks. It is a list of unconnected facts because the mention of the two words "Jayne Mansfield" do not create an encyclopedic relationship between every two items in which the two words appear. Not really all that complicated of a concept, really. And you continue, speaking of reading comprehension, to respond as if the reason this article is up for deletion is because it hasn't "developed fast enough" when nothing like that has been said. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are suggesting that it should not contain stuff that quotes "Jayne" and "Mansfield" in succession? Songs and movies and books that explicitly makes reference to JM are random facts, and does not make for material enough to make an article? [[WP:NOT explicitly explains what it means by "random information":
 * 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions
 * 2. Descriptions of fictional works (not when they are the sole content of an article)
 * 3. Lyrics databases (the article may not consist solely of the lyrics)
 * 4. Statistics
 * 5. News reports (Routine news coverage... not sufficient basis for an article)
 * Since, you have quoted the policy in your nomination, would you explain, please, which part the article fails? You have agreed yourself that "there is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence", then what makes it unworthy? Poor quality of the article? What? By the way, I have never said or implied "reading comprehension". I was just trying to find out what led you to a sesond nomination. May be it's not - "It haven't developed fast". But, it can't be "random facts" either. JM isn't random, her impact and memorability isn't random, making references to her isn't random, and acknowledging those references isn't random. What is?  Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're selectivity reading that policy and citing only the parts which you think support your argument. There has already been extensive discussion on what to do with "...in popular culture" articles and this one falls within the cycle mentioned in that essay. This material should never have been forked from Jayne Mansfield in the first place and certainly should never have been placed in a bulleted list and then abandoned by its creators.


 * I think if you actually read the policies that have been cited in this nomination you will agree that this one fails all of them. Instead of continuing to debate whether or not this is true (and thereby prolonging this already lengthy and litiguous discussion) you can consent to have the article merged, retain the material and work on integrating it into Jayne Mansfield with proper citations. This would not only benefit the people in this discussion, but also the community at large and the readers of this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since, I presume, you have actually read the policy to arrive at the decision, as opposed to "selectively reading and citing", that "this one fails all of them", I hope you will be willing to forward some of the points that fail it. And, I am sure you have read through the link you've provided to describe my behavior is about the principle of policies. I hope you can tell me how agreeing to the fact that JM has enormous pop culture impact, and then quoting the same policy twice in the same sentence without making the point explicit keeps the principle high. The forking was done to keep the article size (already needing a bit of pruning) under control, which is the first suggestion of the other essay you quote.
 * And, I really must draw your attention to a simple fact - this is not a merging discussion, it is a deletion discussion. Therefore, all my arguments are against deletion, not remotely against merging. Apart from driving up the article size, I have nothing against a merge, not even a selective merge. Finally, as this debate is really going against civility (I am already facing charges of prolonging the debate, being litigious and working against the benefit of the project and the community, to quote a few legal terms used here), I guess this is going to be my last post on this page. Go ahead, and have it your way. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment (I was asked to come here, so I think voting would be inappropriate) I've witnessed a few "in popular culture" AfD's and normally the ones which get deleted are the lists - the survivors (e.g. this one) are usually rewritten as prose. If you really want this to stay, it'll have to be converted to prose form to boost its chances. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article has essentially been completely rewritten by Aditya Kabir. Please check it out. The main thrust of my arguments in the last AfD, and in this one, is that the article was not/is not a collection of "trivia", rather it is a article (originally as a list, now in prose) of selected and related items that show Jayne's impact on current pop culture over two generations later, for example in the blockbuster TV show Seinfeld, in a graphic way that a simple statement cannot. In fact, sometimes lists are preferred. It was never an indiscriminate collection of unrelated items that happened to have her name attached to them. I believe that characterization was a misapplication, misunderstanding, or honest disagreement, as the terms used in the guidelines are so subjective than good faith editors can, and often do, have differing viewpoints about what is and what is not trivia. One man's freedom fighter is another's insurgent, as it were. To me, it was never trivia, it was encyclopedic, and it's loss would be a loss for WP and it's readers. There is more than sufficient sources available, including academic ones, to support this article. Furthermore, and more importantly, an article needing improvement is not an article needing deletion. That should be the sixth pillar of WP. I do not understand the apparent anti-trivia crusade (or against what some editors perceive as "trivia") within WP, as "x in popular culture" and similar sections/articles were one of the reasons I came here as a reader before becoming an editor. That added the "spice" to an otherwise bookish article.  And, there is no policy that disallows such content, per se. I have no objection to merging this with the main article, in fact I would prefer it, but a merge !vote is sometimes seen as a delete vote, I think. And it will be easier now, having been recast. — Becksguy (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with this article (and all others like it) is that the material doesn't need to be forked. If it's notable enough already, it should be incorporated into the main body of the article it was originally derived from. By definition, crap that accumulates in trivia and "...in popular culture" sections isn't notable enough for the article itself. It's like adding a gigantic PS to the article with all of the useless minutae that didn't make the cut for the original article. I believe this is almost universally true for all pop culture articles and sections.


 * Further, if we begin to accomodate such lists, they will attract more and more trivial items until we have to fork popular culture articles into "Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (TV)" and so on. This is an encyclopedia, it is not a storybook or an almanac of everything to ever happen in the history of mankind. We should strive to remove unencyclopedic content and improve what isn't so that Wikipedia can continue to maintain its accessibility and readibility well into the future. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * that it might get worse is not reason for deleting it. Any WP article could. Many of them do. They all need watching. DGG (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: The article has gone through massive changes, though there's still a need for nifty copyediting. Would you people take a look again? I wanted to stay away from this silly discussion where people are arguing that an article needs to be deleted because "it could get worse", instead of arguing that it needs to be kept because "it could get better". Well, I hope, it got better this time against some abysmal pessimism. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is making that claim. This article needs to be deleted so that the material can be reincorporated into Jayne Mansfield. Your edits have made it easier by converting the lists to prose so that any editor may copy and paste the most important sections of this article into that one and delete the rest. Cumulus Clouds 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For instance, I have moved a portion of this article into the relevant section of the main article. With community consent, I will do this to the rest of the remaining sections and leave the rest for deletion. Cumulus Clouds 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per The Heymann Standard. This article is so different now than it was when it was nominated and so well-referenced that the nominator's deletion rationale no longer has any relevance to the current article. DHowell 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment [split into parts]
 * 1. Actually this IPC article was split out of the main article because of space considerations there, as a result of a discussion. So, no, it is not a collection of trivia that is not notable enough to be in the main article. And the idea that it could be a trivia magnet is not a reason to delete.
 * 2. From what I see, the deleters don't seem to be responding to the main thrust of the keep arguments here and in the previous AfD, and also now in the article (all incorporated here by reference): This is not trivia. It's extremely well cited cultural references that support the central assertion of her phenomenal impact on pop culture. An impact so great that it transcends generations.  Aditya, DGG, Tvoz, myself, and others have offered sound and valid arguments, and even unimpeachable academic sources, that attest to that fact.  Yet the main deletion argument appears to only refer to the lack of a unifying element, and claim that these are unrelated items only connected by the mention of her name.  And also mostly ignoring the undeniable evidence of her phenomenal impact on pop culture today. That is the unifying element, not that her name happened to be mentioned in each instance. In other words, it's backwards, as it's not trivia riding on her coattails (or inheriting her notability), rather these notable and sourced references support her notability and social impact on pop culture.
 * 3. Even the nominator, in his nomination statement referred to her "...pop culture presence".  DGG said in the first AfD: " Most of the individual items mentioned are highly significant works by notable artists, and their use of this particular symbol is because it is generally culturally recognized as important."  The article has 57 citations at this point, including several academic ones.
 * 4. If this article was about some essentially unknown actress and listed every thing she ever appeared in or was mentioned in, I would agree to delete (and I have done so in other AfDs). I even completely agree with the removal of this reference to Hatta Mari diff by Cumulus Clouds, as it's wasn't notable enough.
 * 5. This second AfD is destructive to Wikipedia in that it wastes all our time and energy that we all could have spent improving the article (or other articles), as described in WP:IPC. And the first AfD came out only two days after this article was forked.  Aditya actually did the most sensible thing here by spending all that energy and time rewriting and sourcing the article with phenomenal success. Something we all could learn from.
 * 6. I have no problem if the content is merged, but only if that merge includes all the content. Any further discussions about merging, integrating or rewriting the content should then take place on the talk page as part of the normal reflective editorial consensus process, rather than here in an highly pressured AfD deadline driven environment that affect all the editors involved in this debate.  Otherwise, Keep.
 * Thank you. —  Becksguy 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the revisions that Aditya has made to this article make much of that information more valuable than it had been in bulleted form, I propose that we begin to merge, with the consent of all concerned parties, that information back into Jayne Mansfield. This will make the original article longer, but I feel that the material will enhance the value of that article enough to override any concerns about length. Material that is disputed as irrelevant or unneeded will be discussed at Talk:Jayne_Mansfield_in_popular_culture and upon reaching consensus, will either be moved or retained in the popular culture article. All the remaining content will then be placed up for deletion at an AfD and editors can voice their concerns about retaining the leftover material there. I volunteer to work with Aditya in executing this merge. Cumulus Clouds 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. But, I'd still like to have the biography article (Jayne Mansfield) and the cultural impact article (Jayne Mansfield in popular culture) separate, and develop both articles. One article may not have space enough for the cultural phenomenon that we know as JM. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * one way or the other, it's an editing question (as is the use of list vs. paragraph format). This should never have come here at all, and what is necessary to do is to simply keep it, and let those interested in the subject work on it. DGG (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, DGG. — Becksguy 09:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge - I have often argued for the retention of "popular culture" articles, because they are a repository for every inane literary, film, etc. reference to the subject, though largely NN. In this case, the article has been culled of the muddle.  What is left looks like a substantial article, but not one that is distictly different from that on Jayne Mansfield.  I would suggest that the material on her post-death reputation should become a new section at the end of her main article, possibly followed by a "popular culture" section with a few inane items, so that the kind of editor who enjoys collecting minor literary references will add them there rather than to what I hope will by them be a well written article.  I know little of the subject and am thus not volunteering.  Peterkingiron 09:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, Peterkingiron.--NAHID 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG or Merge as proposed. Bearian 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another confrontation between mergist and splittist Wikipedians? If we start following the merge logic here - "if it is notable enough it could be merged into the Jayne Mansfield article" - then a lot more could follow. Like, if the information in the Jayne Mansfield article is found to be notable enough it could erged into the Hollywood article, then the Hollywood article could be merged into the Film article... and so on. Something seems to be fundamentally wrong here, like probably "I don't like this article" or something. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why we have WP:SIZE. Merge and split debates should be about individual merits. There is a general trend against "in popular culture" articles, (more of a deletionist movement than a mergist one). I don't like it isn't sufficient grounds for deletion (if it was there'd be no articles on politics or religion by the end of the week), but it does crop up un surprisingly often in AfD debates. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Totnesmartin's comment about WP:SIZE, as that's the reason this IPC article was split off, and especially about individual merits. I'm also concerned about what I see as deletionism generally as a trend away from improving some articles through normal consensus based editing, although I can see that there are editors that believe they are improving WP by doing so (WP:AGF). I will defer to Aditya's sense of space considerations and desirability for having two articles, the main Jayne Mansfield article and this one, as this editor is the primary editor for this article, and is a major contributor to the mother article, and therefore knows the subject better than most of us, I think.  So this is to confirm that my !vote is still a Strong Keep despite my comments on merging.  And my main concern is still to preserve all of the content in this IPC article, for reasons expressed before.  There is zero consensus for deletion at this point, and I seriously doubt any will develop so close to the end of the AfD discussion period.  The consensus seems roughly split between Keep and Merge, although I believe the keep arguments are more persuasive. I urge Keep. — Becksguy (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.