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 of the debate was No consensus, even after discounting the many new users and anons. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising campaign is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, or even a mention in another article. Google search on +"man laws" +flynn +renteria (the latter two being characters from the commercial) gets one hit only - the Wikipedia article.[1] Might it become notable? Perhaps, but WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not_a crystal ball. Шизомби 05:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. "Google test" aside, I'm not sure an article describing this particular beer commercial series is encyclopedic. --DavidGC 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The actor who plays the character of "The Scribe" in these commercials (I can't remember his name now) was featured on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno recently, and the video clip was of a commercial from this series. Also, performing a Google Search on "man law" "miller lite" will get 15,200 hits. However, I will refrain from voting as I cannot decide if this is enough to establish it as notable, nor am I completely convinced (or unconvinced) that this content is encyclopedic. GassyGuy 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I get 272 hits for +"man law" +"miller lite" [2] Шизомби 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Apologies, you are correct. I had dropped my quotation marks from "Miller Lite" when I obtained the erroneous high number. GassyGuy 05:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now (crystal ball). Personally, I think this campaign is a good one and may make a similar impact as the Budweiser Frogs (decent article, considering the subject). I think we'll see this make a legitimate comeback a few months after it's deleted. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my mind. Redirect to Miller Lite, fork if/when necessary. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,There is no official policy on notability. Given that this advertising campaign has seen presence beyond the ads themselves, including but not limited to appearances on popular talk shows (like The Tonight Show With Jay Leno), news articles (NYT [3], Detroit Free Press [4] and Business Week [5]) blog presence, etc; this topic is rapidly becoming a component of popular culture distinct from the product with which it is associated. This topic does not satisfy any of the what wikipedia is not; Crystal ball is reserved for the removal of articles which speak exclusively of future events, this is an event in progress. A Google search for "man law" gives 3 of the top 10 on this subject (none wikipedia). Kershner 15:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable advertising campaign. Similar to Spuds MacKenzie, Where's the beef?, Joe Isuzu, etc. The "crystal ball" theory deals with speculation. This isn't a campaign that may or may not happen, it is currently ongoing. There is nothing speculative about it. AriGold 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I disagree that it has achieved that sort of notability, and I doubt that it will. It's not even a "Make 7up Yours" at this point (which doesn't have an article). I'm not sure where the criteria for a notable advertising campaign worthy of an encyclopedia article is, but I don't believe this comes close. A google search on a not-notable topic will necessarily return results that refer to it, so I'm not sure what that proves. Шизомби 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Current ad campaign, may be remembered, may not. We remember Supds and Joe and the beef lady long after the fact. Without a crystal ball, no way to tell if this will stand the test of time. Fan1967 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, There doesn't seem to be a need to delete it. The information is accurate (within the realm of the commercial), and verifiable. While the long-term relevance of the campaign may be in question, its existence is not. As long as the article is factual who's to say what others should or should not be able to look up on an encyclopedia where the content is entirely user supplied? Jedi697b 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There should probably be a waiting period for articles about commercials, as its hard to tell which advertising campaigns are "important" until after the fact. Wickethewok 04:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Wikipedia is and should be a place where people can go to find answers to their questions. After seeing the commercials on TV, I went to the man laws website to find out who these people were. The site provided some information, but not enough for me to identify those people outside of my experience. The Wikipedia entry provides further information on these people's identities that is not readily available and collected anywhere else. Thus deletion of this article effectively deprives would-be seekers of information of an easy avenue to the answers they seek. This is the purpose of Wikipedia. With no compelling argument in favor of deletion, any deletion discussion should wait until this topic has *left* popular culture (should it do so), not while it is of legitimate interest. This commercial series is unique in that it begs investigation and participation, a characteristic uncommon in advertising. Kershner 12:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The series seems to be expanding and it's relevant in popular culture. Mnapier 21:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The laws are quite funny. My friends discuss the new ones when they're released, and while that may not be a difference, men across the world(if this happens to be running outside of the US) may discuss it at the water cooler, and would therefore, be notable. 209.33.36.146 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per D-Rock. lowercase 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I echo the comments of Kershner and Jedi697b. Comparing entries in Wikipedia to those that would be seen in normal encyclopedias should not serve as the sole barometer for what should be allowable in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has many strengths (and uses) above and beyond standard encyclopedias, and the ability to keep pace with current events is one of them. Tomwithanh 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Throw the term "crystal ball" around all you like, an advertising campaign with such big names is virtually guaranteed to quickly become major enough to deserve an article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comaimprint (talk • contribs) .
• Keep - People at work have been talking about it, I heard it on a sports radio show this morning they spent about 15 minutes discussing some of the funnier ones. I have yet to see the commerical but I have visted the web site based on what friends have told me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.64.83 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At best include with a redirect to the article this is used in the ads for. Vegaswikian 22:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Vegaswikian, could you elaborate on what you are referring to? The ads are a collection of very similar television advertisements entitled 'Man Laws'. This article is the article for the ads themselves. The predominent content would be the cast (included) and the list of Man Laws from the commercial series (not yet in this article). Kershner 06:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. The advertising campaign is not notable yet, but if it becomes better known, the article can be recreated later. --Metropolitan90 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I thought this was the worst idea for an article that I could think of at the time, and I wanted to see if it would take off. Many Wikipedians like to chronicle everything that comes on TV, no matter how inane. Hey, it's on TV, so it must be kept, right? Brian G. Crawford 05:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it is notable. I rarely talk about ad campaigns with my friends, and Man laws is one of them. Arvindn 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable campaign. This wiki entry was the only way I could actually find the official website, google searches came up empty. It also details every member of the square table, information you can't find anywhere else. Wikipedia is a source of information, and it gave me what I wanted. People tend to come here for... anything. There is plenty of useless facts filling the wikipedia, but they are only useless until you actually want to know it. There is nothing to distinguish this from say the history of my car.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.165.200 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. After watching the commercial I felt the need to find more information, and wikipedia had not only the website linking to the main site but also notable information. Many other advertising campaigns have wikis, and therefore this one needs to also, especially as many people (such as myself) feel the need to find information about it. --ReZips 01:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a campaign that can and does require more information with very notable people within the entire campaign. I believe because of the people involved, it is notable enough to keep. A re-evaulation should occur in four months, however. --Mystalic 02:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Any relevant info can be placed on the advertising section of the Miller Lite article. Lots of "new users" and anons seem to be all of a sudden popping up....you guys know what that means.--Jersey Devil 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable ad campaign with each of the men except two having their own wikipedia pages about them, and the two men who do not have wikipedia pages on them can be found at IMDB and also online at other places. The page may require more information but I believe that it should stay. MBob 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is getting huge, I've heard people talking about it and seen people post on Internet forums wondering who the individual characters are. --Liface 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see lots of claims of notability, without anything to substantiate it, except perhaps Kershner's notation of news articles. Whether news articles about ad campaigns are unusual and thus establish notability, I'm not sure. (Personally I don't care for this ad campaign or any fizzy yellow beer or lite fizzy yellow beer, but if notability really were established I wouldn't let that stand in the way of changing my recommendation.) Шизомби 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per the unreliable google test: "Man Laws" gave 3 of the top 10 five days ago, now it gives 8 of the top 10. The Man Laws website has received thousands of submitted man laws and has approved just over a hundred of them [6]. This interaction with the fans of the commercials is demonstrative of yet another reason why this article has continued merit. What separates this commercial series from the rest of the pack, granting notability and merit includes, but is not limited to:
  • An ensemble cast of celebrities appealing to a wide demographic.
  • Interactivity with the audience through the 'watercooler' concept as well as the official website.
  • A dissociation from the product akin to the Taco Bell chihuahua, the Budweiser Frogs, the Energizer Bunny and the Hamburglar.

It should be noted that it would probably be more appropriate for this article to be entitled 'Man Laws' instead of 'Man Law'. That error is my own. Kershner 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep It isn't hurting anything by leaving it up. Gary 00:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the above comment. I would disagree with the original reason as well because I do believe that the campaign is notable.--Stilanas 01:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Query Шизомби, in what way does this article not satisfy the definition of notable?: "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". Quite clearly, the commercial series prevalance on TV with a substantive 'cast', coupled with cast members on late night talk shows, news articles, blog activity and watercooler behavior establishes a wide interest group. As this is my first AfD, I am not sufficiently familiar with the Wikipedia usage of notability as a criteria to be certain that my interpretation equates that of the community as a whole. Kershner 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i know several offenders of manlaws, and to me it is a very emotional subject.--Mattfoley 01:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AFAIK blog activity counts for little or nothing and I'm not sure what watercooler activity you're referring to. Users posting in the AfD that they discuss this commercial at the watercooler definitely doesn't count for anything. A newspaper article in which it is reported that there is a lot of watercooler talk about this campaign might count for something (though I would suspect a slow news day and a lazy reporter working from a Miller Lite press release). Celebrities in a commercial is not unusual. The late night talk show appearances and news articles might be getting somewhere, as I wrote above, but again I'm not so sure that's unusual for a commercial either. There are any number of longer-running commercial campaigns that I can think of that don't have articles: Make 7 Up Yours, 1-800-CALL-ATT, the Old Navy Commercials, etc. (and which I'm not sure should have articles either) which to some degree makes me think this one shouldn't either. Can it be proven to be exceptionally popular (or unpopular), can it be proven to have been exceptionally successful (or unsuccessful), has it won any awards, has it been spoofed, etc.? An article for Tastes Great, Less Filling would make sense, since that campaign's notability can be easily established. Man Law, however: not now and not anytime soon, I suspect. Шизомби 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for the explanation. Obviously we have material disagreements on the notability of this topic, but your comments lead me to a better understanding of your perspective on the matter and the usage of the term notable within the Wikipedia community. My primary contention on the difference between the ad campaigns you cite and this one is that this satisfies both a dissociation of product (similar to the other Wikipedia articles cited previously) and interactivity (create / talk about man laws). These two characteristics cause the audience to have questions and comments about the commercial series and not the product. The result of this is that Wikipedia can represent a place where information on the commercial can be collected and presented concisely and for which that information has a substantive audience, as demonstrated by the many 'keeps' noted above. Kershner 01:47, 31 May 2006 (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.