Talk:ShamWow
Latest comment: 13 years ago by DAVilla in topic ShamWow
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
If you can have Twinkie why can't you have Shamwow? The entry had 3 cites as required by WT:CFI. Polarpanda 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because Twinkie has a separate meaning (apart from the cake). ShamWow doesn't seem to. SemperBlotto 11:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- If that's the criterion you don't need this page at all: Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Brand_names Polarpanda 12:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- The entry seems to satisfy CFI through WT:BRAND. Anyone mind if I undelete it? --Yair rand 22:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Restored. Allowed by CFI. --Yair rand 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- If that's the criterion you don't need this page at all: Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Brand_names Polarpanda 12:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Looks completely legit to me. In fact I'm a bit disturbed that User:Polarpanda took the time to find citations only to have the entry deleted a second time, including the citations! At least he wasn't blocked, so hey, maybe we're making progress here. DAVilla 05:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)