Talk:Fluffy Puff Mayo
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Delete) |
(→Delete: No.) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::If it stays, it could use a rework. The first sentence, for example, rambles on until almost a third line. -[[User:DAGRON|DAGRON]] 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | ::If it stays, it could use a rework. The first sentence, for example, rambles on until almost a third line. -[[User:DAGRON|DAGRON]] 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
:'''Merge.''' It's appeared briefly and only featured twice. There's not enough information about it to warrant an entire page just for it.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 05:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | :'''Merge.''' It's appeared briefly and only featured twice. There's not enough information about it to warrant an entire page just for it.--[[User:Big Dog|Big Dog]] 05:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::I'm inclined to agree with Has Matt?. '''Keep.''' There's plenty of information for this to be a stand-alone article. {{User:OptimisticFool/sig}} 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:13, 22 December 2007
Mayo or fluff?
I don't get it? -Thechamp 23:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete
This should be merged with Fluffy-Puff Marshmallows, along with all the other Fluffy-Puff Marshmallow pages (Except Mascots).
Sam the Man
02:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. Fluffy Puff Mayonnaise is a product entirely separate from Fluffy Puff Marshmallows, and it has definitely appeared enough to merit a page. All Fluffy Puff-related pages are binded together by Category:Fluffy Puff, so there's no need to merge them. — Has Matt? (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- If it stays, it could use a rework. The first sentence, for example, rambles on until almost a third line. -DAGRON 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. It's appeared briefly and only featured twice. There's not enough information about it to warrant an entire page just for it.--Big Dog 05:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Has Matt?. Keep. There's plenty of information for this to be a stand-alone article.
OptimisticFool 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Has Matt?. Keep. There's plenty of information for this to be a stand-alone article.
