Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline

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 delete. Secret ^account 14:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absurd article that mirrors data from the Jayne Mansfield filmography against irrelevant trivia relating to others films -- including The Pawnbroker and 2001: A Space Odyssey -- that have absolutely no connection to Mansfield. There is nothing to redirect -- anyone looking for information on this actress will go directly to the biographical Jayne Mansfield article and not type out "Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline." Warrah (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is based upon content that is OR to say the least, picking and choosing which facts from "Sex and Censorship" and which aspects of the "Film Industry" somehow relate to the subject at hand. It is OR to even have the three right columns on the chart without sourcing the connection. There is nothing here that suggests it is notable enough to be separate from the Jayne Mansfield article. Mrathel (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restating If not OR, which I think is inherent in suggesting that these events are linked, it is at least "Connective Trivia". But the point is that you can't have an article with a sole purpose of showing that one event in a year, say 1960, happened at the same time as another event in 1960. That is understood by anyone who understands the concept of dates. Without text describing why these are linked, the reader has to take the word of the person creating the chart that there is a valid connection. I tried to view the sources, the first two appeared dead, but I saw nothing that would fix the overall issue by showing that outside research has been done to prove a real connection between the subject of the article and the choice of facts to connect to her. Mrathel (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OR? Did you even check the sources given? No. Obviously you didn't. No connection to Jayne Mansfield? This almost exactly is what they said about Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. But, on that occasion I had some time on hand to show how invalid the argument was. Content forking is a perfectly good way to develop the Wikipedia. But, the collaboration that we call Wikipedia has degraded so much that people collaborate only to destroy nowadays, instead of trying to create or develop. Anyways, go ahead and do whatever you deem fit. I have userified the article. So that when I have some more time I can come back to work on it and make it AfD-proof. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Jayne Mansfield filmography. Entertainment articles, like sports articles, have a lower bar when it comes to original research, but even under that double standard, this should list available sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - last I checked, WP:NOT was still policy. We have her biography; we have her filmography; that should do. This sort of experiment showing how someone's life was going on simultaneously with events that were wholly unrelated (and yes, they are; do review WP:SYNTH), and condensing it to give one Wikipedian's view of what "really" matters about it, is not something we do around here. As to your theory about content forking being "perfectly good": long-established consensus disagrees. And note that two of your links are dead, two are for self-published sites (Wikipedia relies on reliable, third-party published sources, in case you were unaware); and one is to some TV programme (see above). Let's just stop this while we're ahead. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:42, 11 December 2009 (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.