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 [1] clearly shows a massively improved article. Pigman ☿ 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply