Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield in popular culture

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 No consensus. Maxim(talk) 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Strong delete - directory of non-associated topics. The items have absolutely no relationship to one another past happening to all mention the name "Jayne Mansfield." Otto4711 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as the two films mentioned, in which she & her death are a major theme? DGG (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually seen either film? Her death is not a theme, major or otherwise, in either film. In Crash, her death is one of several which are re-created and which consumes IIRC about two minutes of screen time. To Wong Foo contains a single throwaway joke. Your apparent assumption from this article that these two films include Mansfield or her death as major themes strikes me as another argument against the article, if it's leading people to believe things that aren't true. Otto4711 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never claimed to be an expert. :) You have given a good example of why material should be dealt with by discussing editing on the article talk page, not here. DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danny, I suppose you are prepared to defend that for every single item? DGG (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While I guess I can understand the desire of some editors to eliminate what they consider to be trivia or WP:IPC, this article in particular should not be deleted, as it will be a loss to the reading public. This is not trivia. Jayne Mansfield was probably the second most important popular cultural icon in the 1950s, next to Marilyn Monroe, in her category. There was so much press attention to her iconic status that I wouldn't be surprised if one or more academic articles were written about her impact on pop culture. Google Scholar shows 234 hits on her name and "popular culture" for example. The St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture (Gale 1999) has a signed 1400+ word article on her, and that's in a serious reference book from a major publisher in the business of providing reference books for libraries and schools. The first sentence from that article says: Although many people have never seen her movies, Jayne Mansfield remains, long after her death, one of the most recognizable icons of 1950s celebrity culture. To me, that provides sufficient notability for this article. And there are most likely more out there. The usual charges made against trivia & IPC articles/sections is that it's a disorganized and indiscriminate collection of information. I think this article is well organized and structured (in fact much better organized compared to when it was a section in the main article) and it is not an indiscriminate collection. Granted there are some items that could be pruned, but Mansfield was the essence of popular culture and that is encyclopedic. Besides the items being associated by her name, they are also associated in their depiction of her impact on popular culture. She became a cult icon due to her popularity. To delete this article diminishes Wikipedia and would be a mistake. However, it would be preferable to merge a pruned and better referenced version back into the main article. I urge those !voting to delete to reconsider. — Becksguy 09:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of Jayne Mansfield is not inherited by every mention of her name in any context. Otto4711 15:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These references are not here because they inherit her notability or ride on her coattails. Rather they are here because they offer notable evidence of Mansfield's impact on and penetration into popular culture in a way that's hard to portray in prose form. And this format is perfectly acceptable in WP, even recommended. See WP:TRIVIA where it says: A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. Furthermore, they are each notable examples in their own right. This article adds to the understanding of Janye Mansfield. — Becksguy 05:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really. How exactly is our understanding of Mansfield increased by In the Seinfeld episode "The Implant" Jerry quips "you know that Jayne Mansfield had some big breasts!" to girlfriend Teri Hatcher as he tries to figure out if her breasts are in fact real.? What does the knowledge that Jerry Seinfeld's fictional persona was aware that Mansfield's breasts were large contribute to our understanding of Mansfield or of anything else? Nothing. Otto4711 12:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is relevant that they are the commonly understand standard for having big breasts, or they wouldnt be used that way. this illuminates the way the world thinks of her. DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. There is nothing any more significant about having picked Jayne Mansfield than had he picked Chesty Morgan or Morganna the Kissing Bandit or any of the women from the List of big-bust models and performers. This is just another example of your bizarre insistence that the mere mention of something in a work of fiction means that it's a theme of that work of fiction. Otto4711 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's relevant because a very notable pop cultural icon from the 1950s was included as a reference in a very notable pop cultural icon TV show in the 1990s. The association is notable and significant and referenced. It shows that Jayne Mansfield had such a major impact on popular culture in her time that some 35+ years later the symbolic reference would be recognized. And I don't think many of the intended target market viewers of Seinfeld had first hand experience seeing her on TV or in the press. Mansfield was the essence of the celebrity-as-celebrity domain in pop culture. This article wouldn't be necessary for an actress of the caliber of Meryl Streep, for example, because that kind of actress is not notable in the same domain, rather they are notable for their acting ability, awards, and work corpus. People like Mansfield are famous for being famous. That is how these references help us understand her. And I agree with DGG's comment about her breasts. It's right on the money. — Becksguy 07:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is the Seinfeld episode. The significance is that Seinfeld would not have included a cultural reference from two generations earlier if the audience wouldn't be expected to get it. That observation is based, as they say in the courtroom, on life experience. It does not require a scholarly article in a peer reviewed journal to establish it's significance. And I'm sorry I got bogged down in a discussion on one reference when this is an AfD on the article. The individual references should have been, or will be, discussed within the editing process. — Becksguy 12:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it original research to say that when someone accidentally touches a hot stove, they pull back because of the pain experienced? Some things don't rise to the level requiring expert interpretation, as I said above. — Becksguy 20:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per more trivia-cruft without any verification--JForget 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability of the topic as a whole has been addressed by at least two specific major unimpeachable references. 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 episode specification are for the sake or giving a specific reference, and are laudable, not risible. "The notability of Jayne Mansfield is not inherited by every mention of her name in any context. " -- I presume then it is relevant to some discussions of her name in some contexts. The rest can be dealt with by editing. As usual. DGG (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I read the AfD defences first and frankly was disappointed by the article. Merge sounds like the best option, mostly the songs, although without sources....Canuckle 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually this was a section in the main article for at least two years, although originally smaller. It was split out on September 5th, and then nominated for AfD only two days later on September 7th. — Becksguy 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The defenders of this article would be perfectly happy with a merge--if the merge included the material. But the sequence has showed, and the debate above confirmed, that those wishing to delete this article are objected to the very presence of the material itself, which they think not worth the inclusion, and have tried and will try every possible means of removing it, in order to conform WP to their own narrow conception of it. If enough people agree, then it will be time to fork the project--the inevitable result if we can not learn to tolerate each of us what other people consider important. This is not intended to be an academic scholarly work. there already is a good one under way at citizendium, and perhaps some of those who dislike this material would be happier there. They will need to use real names, and if they want to edit as distinct from contribute for others to edit, to demonstrate academic credentials at a graduate level in the subject concerned. DGG (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, in the absence of histrionics and garment-rending about the need for advanced academic degrees, that a Wikitrivia site is an excellent idea. That way those who want to pass their days playing spot-the-reference would have a place to play and those who understand that such reference-spotting adds nothing to an encyclopedic understanding of a topic would also be satisfied. Otto4711 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have been misinterpreted--I do not support forking--I support comprehensiveness, the continuation of our present and longstanding policy. Nor do I support requirements for advanced degrees--I think our present comprehensive policy is correct here too. DGG (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No reliable sources? What about the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture as referenced in this article. This information existed for at least two years as an IPC/trivia section in the main article, and that implied long time consensus that it belongs. Then it was split off by an editor without any discussion on article talk page. This belongs back in the main article, properly referenced, organized, selected, and pruned, from whence it was wrongly removed. — Becksguy 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's obvious that there is no consensus here, and based on the way the discussion is moving, very unlikely to get to that state. I choose to believe that all those participating, especially those of us actively debating, have a good faith desire and intent to improve Wikipedia and this article, even if we have differing views on how to best do that. I think there are two major reasons consensus is difficult. First is the problem of the The Two Cultures, which in Wikipedia are the differing views on what Wikipedia should be. I hate to use the terms Deletionism and Inclusionism because they seem extreme and may act as polarizing forces. But they seem to be a reality. The second reason are the filters, experiences, and understandings we all bring to the debate. The words and phrases used to justify doing, or not doing something are very subjective and have different contexts to everyone, including well meaning editors. One editor's indiscriminate is another's carefully selected, and so on. And the terms trivia or trivial has become corrupted beyond any meaningful use. The term cruft is pejorative. And the application of the terms and phrases are inconsistent from discussion to discussion, at least partially because different editors participate, each with their own view points and experience. But also because the articles are different and have different contexts and justifications. DGG and I believe that these references belong in the main article where they will be subject to the normal editing process and hashed out there. It looked to me like the split off/nomination of this list is an abuse of process, which may be unintentional, as there was no apparent discussion in the article talk page before the split, and then only two days latter, the AfD nomination. I have said that the list could use pruning and some rewrite (in addition to the excellent work by Le Grand), as this article is a bit too long in comparison to the main article. I have also said that this article was in poor shape when it was a section in the main article. So where is some concession from those that want deletion. I might also point out that IPC lists are not disallowed under policy, and in fact, lists are recommended in some cases. Deletion should be the last resort, not the first resort, as is being attempted here. — Becksguy 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious that there is consensus here, despite this effort to obfuscate it. There is clear numerical superiority for the deletion argument and the keepers have not addressed the policy and guideline issues surrounding the page. The veiled accusation of collusion between whatever editor it was who split it off and me as the nominator is without foundation and borders on a failure to assume good faith on your part. Otto4711 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no reason to believe that there was collusion. The editor that split off the section was acting in good faith, and you as nominator was acting in good faith, even though I disagree with the actions taken. I even said at the beginning of my comment above that: I choose to believe that all those participating, especially those of us actively debating, have a good faith desire and intent to improve Wikipedia and this article, even if we have differing views on how to best do that.' — Becksguy 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with the arguments presented above by DGG and Becksguy, especially the reminder that deletion should be the last resort, not an action taken two days after a section forked off into an article. I haven't looked deeply into the history of this specific article regarding merging and forking yet, but I do know some of your history, Otto4711, and this seems to be yet another time that you want to chip away at Wikipedia's diversity and breadth by ridding it of what you think is a waste of time. Your statement above: those who want to pass their days playing spot-the-reference would have a place to play and those who understand that such reference-spotting adds nothing to an encyclopedic understanding of a topic is dismissive and rude, and reveals your lack of knowledge about the academic field of popular culture studies. I've tried to educate you about it elsewhere, but you don't seem to want to learn, and continue to push for removal of articles that are notable and valuable to scholars. You don't find this area of investigation to be valid, apparently, and that is your right, but to try to whittle down Wikipedia and rid it of what clearly disturbs your sensibilities is wrong-minded and incredibly POV. Also, "numerical superiority" - is that a fancy way of saying this is a vote? I hope not. And if you are now counting heads, how do you calculate the numerical value of "strong"? Tvoz |talk 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh well gee, I guess I just ain't bright enough to be edjumacated. At least, not if that "education" is intended to get me to agree that collections of this kinds of garbage have the slightest encyclopedic worth. It does not in any way increase the encyclopedic understanding of Jayne Mansfield to have a list of every time someone happened to say her name and if you think that your "education" is going to make me think any differently you might as well save yourself the time and trouble because I will never agree with you. It is you who does not understand popular culture studies if you believe that an actual serious study of a pop culture phenomenon consists of "look, someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'!"
  • I did not say that AFD is a vote. If you had bothered to read all the way to the end of the sentence you would have seen that it said "There is clear numerical superiority for the deletion argument and the keepers have not addressed the policy and guideline issues surrounding the page. Nor have you addressed or refuted them. All you've done is express your disapproval of me and your desire to keep unencyclopedic material in an encyclopedia, and I can only hope that the closing admin is able to look past your non-arguments and borderline personal attacks. Otto4711 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually we did address the issues. Notability and verifiability are satisfied as indicated by DGG with two unimpeachable and serious references. In addition, in one year 1956/1957, there were 2500+ newspaper photos, and 122,000+ newspaper lines of coverage published. There are also other references to her status in popular culture. I guess Neutral POV could be addressed by adding an equal number of pop culture items that don't refer to Jayne Mansfield for balance (that's a joke, I think we need a bit of humor). The article is referenced, organized, and generally selective, although it could use pruning. Pop culture has an overwhelming power to shape and form our culture, so it is a very suitable and important encyclopedic subject. There is a scholarly peer reviewed journal entitled: Journal of Popular Culture. From their site: The Journal of Popular Culture continues to break down the barriers between so-called “low” and “high” culture and focuses on filling in the gaps a neglect of popular culture has left in our understanding of the workings of society.[1] I say again, there is no consensus for deletion here, and the article is encyclopedic. And finally, there is no general consensus for the deletion of WP:IPC articles in WP, nor is there a policy forbidding them (even if they are discouraged). — Becksguy 06:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And here is a specific reference to the movie Crash. Botting, Fred & Wilson, Scott. Automatic lover. Screen, Vol 39, 1998. This is published by Oxford University Press. Short fair use excerpt: Hollywood, of course, has a tradition of disaster films and of film careers arrested, destroyed or immortalized in one kind of crash or another, and they provide the conventional means by which the crash and its victim may be romanticized by the image: with its photographs and photographed reenactments of the celebrated deaths of James Dean and Jayne Mansfield, Crash makes explicit reference to this tradition. I believe that establishes that item's notability. Added to the article. — Becksguy 06:46, 15 September 2007 (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/Jayne_Mansfield_in_popular_culture&oldid=1137945231"