Talk:Mango flavor

Merger proposal
I propose that Mango flavor be merged into Mango. I think that the content in the Mango flavor article can easily be explained in the context of Mango, and the Mango article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Mango flavor will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see clear indications that mango flavor is necessarily a notable standalone topic, and from that perspective merging might be a good idea. Article size and undue weight wouldn't be a problem, it's true, but I am concerned about dumping those non-inline references into the main article, which already needs additional sourcing (and better sourcing). The wording of this article, short as it may be, also needs some work. If someone with access to the refs can actually make them inline citations, I'd be happy to copyedit, and at that point I'd support a merger. Otherwise, oppose. Rivertorch (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the references in Mango flavor is actually a useful source. The whole article appears to be predicated on promoting the recent work of one research group, when google scholar doesn't even rank them in the field of Mango flavor research. Mango flavor should be redirected to Mango. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article can be merged into "Mango"; nevertheless I do not know how to do it. The article has now been improved to make it more general and the part which makes it appear a specific lab's promotional article has been removed or modified. Further additional important references from other research groups have been added. I disagree with Stuartyeates that none of the references are useful. All the references represent original research articles as well as a book-chapter. All references have been converted into In-line references.Ram biotech (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I also see no reason for a stand-alone article. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there is much rejoice, I've finalized the merge. I too see no need for a seperate article on it, nor see what could possibly warrant that. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)