Talk:Man Laws

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Merge Discussion

I disagree. If the Budweiser Frogs merit their own entry, this does. In particular, now that individual "man laws" are actually being broadcast, the list of those "laws" will probably end up here. 68.50.29.208 03:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I disagree as well. I think that the premise of manly men figuring out the guiding principles of man law is an independent enough concept to warrant it's separate placement from whichever company sponsored it...

I also disagree. There is a significant amount of material for the 'man laws' that is separate in scope from Miller Lite. As with the Budweiser Frogs, this ad campaign has the potential to become an aspect of popular culture independent of the product itself. Additionally, merging this article with Miller Lite would serve to clutter the Miller Lite article while simultaneously serving as an advertisement for Miller Lite to those who desire more information on the 'Man Laws' topic. Kershner 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As a consensus appears to have been reached and no reason for a merge with Miller Lite has been posted including by the original editor, I have removed the merge request. Kershner 01:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the AfD (and I had nothing to do with it's implementation), I do think the article should be merged with Miller Lite, because it is not a singularly notable ad campaign that stands on its own within the overall culture. The Budweiser Frogs not only stands on its own in that right, but it was a notable campaign that ran over a number of years. This campaign ("Man Laws") has run for only a few months. Using the logic noted here, each and every separate ad campaign would deserve it's own separate WP entry. --Mhking 05:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree and I disagree with the post above that it is not singularly notable and does not stand on its own. Why not? This article contains good information and is expected to grow as the campaign continues. Why delete it now? It's relevant now. If it ceases to become relevant, delete it then. WikiLaw! Hxrealm 23:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability and Controversy

I think that the 'you poke it you own it' commercial has officially given this series of commercials a bit more notability, given the angry response from the femenist blogosphere. [[1]][[2]][[3]] The basic concern is that 'you poke it you own it' is referring less to beer than it is to women. It seems to have lead to a lot of pissed-off people. 24.62.27.66 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)