Talk:ShamWow

ShamWow
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: 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)
 * 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)