Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M&M Desexualization Controversy

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. If people think a redirect is warranted, they can create one, although it appears unlikely to me that somebody would search for this phrase. Sandstein 09:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M&M Desexualization Controversy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not every flash-in-the-pan "controversy" or talk show host stupidity needs an article here. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. These days people raise such "controversies" on everything everyday, but being a notable subject requires more than the mocking by a TV-host. Cavarrone 10:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not worth an article, but the anthropomorphized M&M commercials are. People have been talking about the oddly sexualized nature of some of them, casual violence/cannivalism, etc. for some time now. So reframe to be about that broadly. I thought about doing it myself, but I can't bring myself to start an article about a commercial campaign. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a lengthy M&M's#M&M's characters section, isn't that sufficient. The M&M's article also has a very long section on "marketing", with little focus on encyclopedic discussion of the marketing, but a rambling series of trivia like "In 2007, M&M's introduced a limited-edition raspberry flavor called "M&M's Razzberry Chocolate Candies"." A cleanup of the main article, with one line about the "controversy", may be feasible. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I mean is that section could probably stand to be its own article. If someone did that, there might be cause for a few words about this (certainly not as a "controversy"), but it would be undue in the parent article so I guess Delete otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cavarrone. I'd like to add: NOT-WP:LASTING. It's so funny and sad that this wasn't successfully prodded. It's precisely this that was frivolous (with reference to the edit summary), and not the proposed deletion. tw^sabin 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete M&M's#M&M's characters should cover it without the usual 'culture war' kvetching (as long as the yellow M&M remains the kind and nervous soul he is, I don't care about the rest of it). Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I get that performers are always trying to drum up a reaction to whatever is going on in pop culture, but Wikipedia is a place to cover long-term factual information, and not short term bursts of opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content somewhere: Readers would be best served by this episode being covered somewhere in our coverage of m&ms and the recent mascot changes, with the barest mention of Tucker's views. Carlson's attitude to sexual issues leads him to make the most bizarre comments on these things. I fear to know the inner workings of his brain.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M&M's#M&M's characters per WP:NOTNEWS, that way if any content does need to be preserved it can be done so. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are twitter people starting the controversy. TzarN64 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely to be WP:LASTING. Will likely stay undue for the main M&M's article. Femke (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe this page got made before Twitter got bored of the M&M thing. This realistically shouldn't even be on the main M&M page, let alone have it its own page. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few sentences to M&M's. Does not appear to have generated enough secondary coverage to warrant a separate article, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED. If a company thinks so many people are getting sexually attracted to their anthropomorphic candy mascot that they have to change it, that's their perogative and not a real "controversy". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M&M's#M&M's characters. Never heard about this incident, I thought I was the only one who thought some of the M&M characters were oddly sexualized for a candy mascot. Surprised to hear someone objecting to a desexualization of an anthropomorphic character but it's not worthy of an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 8 February 2022 (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.