A fact from Vienna Fingers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,221 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
There is no notability for this subject at the time. The sources here are just the main site of the main company, and an article that never mentions the cookie. There is no reason why this should exist unless there's notability provided. Until then, this should remain as a redirect. Metros (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this at WP:3O. In my opinion, there is no notability displayed in this article. It merely shows descriptions of the product through original research (such as comparing it to an Oreo). One source is the homepage of the Keebler company while the other can be found here and has no mention of the cookie at all. The author of this article, User:Ask the fudgecicle, has not commented here, but his beliefs can be found here and here. I believe that these arguments amount only to "well other stuff exists!" and Wikipedia needs to be about everything. Metros (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hearty concur by default. I'll drop a note on fudgecicle's talk page so that he can respond. My opinion is still completely open, since I think the linked comments don't comprise a realistic formal defense on his part. arimareiji (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you read some of my notes, you must have read them too quickly. It is true that part of my argument is that the Vienna fingers page has more information than many other stubs (like Chips Deluxe). However, a more important part is why it is not only out of proportion with other articles, as all of the discussors have seen, but why redirecting or deleting the page would be harmful to Wikipedia. The page it is usually redirected to is the Keebler page. The Keebler page, if you would look at it carefully, does not show notability of the cookie either. It is barely even mentioned, just as another product Keebler makes. The Vienna fingers page in question shows an awful lot more information and notability, not to mention being even longer than the Keebler page. In summation, redirecting or deleting Vienna fingers would actually be harmful.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
I'm sorry, but to me the question is still of cultural notability. There are products that have achieved it, even to the extent that their names have lost trademarkability because they've become words in their own right - to my knowledge, this is not one of the ones that has achieved cultural notability. If you can demonstrate that they've ever been spoken of in pop culture, or even outside utilitarian conversations (i.e. "Where are the Vienna fingers?" "On aisle 5 with the other cookies."), that would be a reasonable argument for inclusion. arimareiji (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vienna fingers do have some cultural significance. If you were to google them, you would find quite a few reviews, and more than 1,430,000 websites that mention them. One review is found here[1]. Vienna fingers are important; you just don't look deep enough into the subject.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the Fudgecicle[reply]
Sure, if you type them in as separate words - but that's more than a little intellectually dishonest. Someone who's eating "Vienna" sausages with their "fingers" doesn't really count. I get 4730 using "Vienna fingers" - almost all commercial links (all utilitarian), and a few "reviews." To contrast, when I put in ladyfingers (their arguable ancestor) I get 60x that number, most of which demonstrate minor cultural significance. And I don't see evidence of notability in your Wiki article. Sorry, but I have to support AfD. arimareiji (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vienna Fingers are Kellogs products. Kelloggs is a fortune 500 company. It is safe to say that all products made by them deserve some form of distinction. Again, they are not individual objects, but widespread products. Yes, it is true that they are not as important as, say, Oreos, or even as culturally significant. However, They are not like some tree in your backyard. They are in some sort of a gray area in the middle. This is why it is not an immensely long article, like the featured articles, but more of a stub, like many respectable articles on things that are not as well known as others. You all have to understand the difference between something that is widespread but not groundbreaking and something that is not groundbreaking or widespread, or even unique. Vienna Fingers are unique. Vienna fingers are not just a random cookie in someones house; they are a cookie in a million peoples' houses. Now, lets take a look statistically at what Vienna Fingers has to offer. The vienna fingers page that I have written is one of the most frequently edited pages on Wikipedia-the site itself says so! That is important! You cannot just simply erase all of that! Here is another problem about deleting or redirecting the page in which I have spoken of many times but you have simply ignored, stating that my real argument was something completely different. If you were to redirect the vienna fingers page, it would go to the Keebler page. If you were to redirect the vienna fingers page, it would go to the Keebler page. The Keebler page is much smaller than the vienna fingers page and says less abou its importance and significance. The Keebler page is much smaller than the vienna fingers page and says less abou its importance and significance. Therefore, the decision of destroying the humble VF page would be not only harmful to Wikipedia, but also lose valuable references, links, and information; all of which is important to people who read Wikipedia. Therefore, the decision of destroying the humble VF page would be not only harmful to Wikipedia, but also lose valuable references, links, and information; all of which is important to people who read Wikipedia.. Now, I have another complaint. Earlier, I wrote in saying that if you were to google vienna fingers, you would end up with more than a million sites. Someone else took a look at it and discovered than there are only about five thousand sites. Since when is five thousand sites preceded with "only"? Hopefully, my comments have been helpful and beneficial to all those reading them, and I also hope that everyone makes the right choice.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
"Now, lets take a look statistically at what Vienna Fingers has to offer. The vienna fingers page that I have written is one of the most frequently edited pages on Wikipedia-the site itself says so! That is important! You cannot just simply erase all of that!" I'm sorry, where does it say that? An article with 43 edits in its history is probably not going to rank up there as "most frequently edited."
"Earlier, I wrote in saying that if you were to google vienna fingers, you would end up with more than a million sites. Someone else took a look at it and discovered than there are only about five thousand sites. Since when is five thousand sites preceded with "only"? " Only is a word used in comparison like this: "I was hoping for $1,000,000 but I only received $500,000." There's a large discrepancy between one million and five thousand, so that's why an "only" would be appropriate. Metros (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there isn't a large discrepancy between a million and five thousand. I'm saying that five thousand is still a lot. Also, a few days ago, I looked on the Wiki stats page (on the home page, if you click on the big number just above the featured article, you will find it) and that led me to another link which said so. This was a few days ago, as I said, and as I haven't touched it for a while, it is easy to understand why thefrequency has gone down. Now, you are still missing my major point. I even said it twice above, one italiscized, one normal. You have not even acknowledged this in your replies. What is this, a sign of weakness? The point that I proved that no one else will admit bcause there is no way around it? That's what it seems to me. You do have to agree, deleting or redirecting vienna fingers would destruct valuable information. Also, I put in a new section about the reduced fat variety, and Metros, for some strange reason, thought that I had no references and put up a sign that says so. Well, if you actually looked at what I write for once, you would find that there is a reference, one that has already been used. It is quite fine to reuse a reference; don't be offended by it. I even put in an extra little link for the same thing in case you couldn't find it.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
Valuable information such as what? It's a description of the cookie and its packaging with one mention of history. How is that valuable? As for your "referenced" varieties section: are you really expecting that users navigate through pages of the Keebler website in order to find that one piece of information? How was I to know that the information was there in the hundreds of pages that link off of Keebler.com? And you still need to address the fact that that section still doesn't have citations for every thing you say in there. Metros (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many times have I told you people about the main reason why you shouldn't delete the page? Come on, just read it for once. Actually reply. Tell me your thoughts on the subject. I want Wikipedia to be as good as possible, but that can't be done without your help. Just read my comments for once. Please. Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
I've read it. We lose valuable information on a very, very important subject, in your opinion, if we redirect it. And I argue that there isn't valuable information lost nor is it a very important subject. Metros (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not valuable? I say its worth a million dollars! Picture Ken Jennings on Jeopardy!. It's the final question. The catergory is food and drink companies. The answer: This common household product was one of the original products made by Sunshine Biscuits, and is named after the capital of Austria. Ken Jennings, of course, would have read the Wikipedia page and known all about vienna fingers. You see, this kind of information is trivia. It's not trivial! There is a difference!Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
This article is important because it could be an answer to a question on Jeopardy and because it is trivia? Okay, at this point I'm walking away from this discussion before this discussion sinks even lower than that, Metros (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that its only use is on Jeopardy. I was just using that as an example. It could be a bajillion other things. After all, it is trivia, and trivia I have found is the most useful form of information, simply because it can connect to many other things. Now, is this article damaging? Is it sucking the life from other helpless articles? No. All it is doing is taking up a few bytes of space so people can have the convienence of not having to find another source than Wikipedia. Also, it might be a good thing if you leave. Everyone else seems to have, Metros, and the article would never be deleted that way. By the way, why do you call yourself Metros? That just sounds so cliche. Ask the fudgecicle is better. If you try to sound out the second row on a keyboard (asdfghjkl), it sounds just like Ask the fudgecicle. Try it. Anyway, vienna fingers are definitely important.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
It appears that some editors here are unfamiliar with the normal WP:Articles for deletion process, so here's an outline:
Don't waste your time debating the merits and demerits of this article on this page: the discussion that really matters is the one at AfD.
The only policy that really matters at AfD is WP:Notability. An article can be biased, ugly, full of grammar errors, and still be on a notable topic. Conversely, an article can be beautifully constructed, perfectly neutral, a marvel of good writing, and utterly fail notability. Read WP:N (and its related pages), and base your argument on it. If you want your recommendation to be the "winning" one, then you might also want to take a careful look at the long list of losing arguments at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
The AfD link is here. On that page, you should concisely summarize the best arguments for or against deletion. Winning arguments refer directly to policies and content, not to WP:ILIKEITorWP:IDONTLIKEIT. A normal response looks like this:
Keep This subject is clearly notable subject because there are three articles from national magazines dedicated to this subject,[link][link][link] and a book published by [name of major publishing house or prominent author] has three entire chapters about this subject (your signature and date)
Delete This subject is clearly not notable because no independent, third-party reliable sources have ever published any articles or books about this subject. The few sources that happen to mention this subject at all, such as [link to an example], only mention it in a list of products, or only have a single sentence about it. (your signature and date)
Merge and redirect This subject doesn't meet the notability requirements for an entirely separate article, but Wikipedia should probably have some information about this subject. All the good information should be merged to this page, where the reader can learn about other closely related items as well. (your signature and date)
Comment Whatever happens to this article might also be a good choice for this other article. (your signature and date)
There's no actual rule against this, but I advise against arguing on the AfD page. AfD is not like a regular talk page. You're not talking to each other at AfD: you're presenting a coherent, carefully thought-out recommendation to the administrator that will review the case in a few days. It's okay to ask for a clarification, to offer a short comment, or to point out a significant error or to second an important point, but the preferred style is for each editor to say his/her bit in turn and leave the others alone. If your rationale is strong, then you don't need to repeat it over and over again. Argument from repetition is a fallacy.
You are not required to respond to any comment made at AfD. If you ask a question, no one is required to answer it. It is not a talk page. Many uninvolved editors make a recommendation and then never look at the page again.
AfD is not a vote. You don't need a lot of people on your "side". You need the best argument. If twenty people recommend deletion because they found no reliable sources, and you are the only person in favor of keeping the article and you provide plenty of obviously reliable sources directly about the subject (passing mentions, such as "Keebler, the maker of Chips Deluxe, Hydrox and Vienna Fingers, bought Sunshine Biscuits..." don't count), then the article will be kept.
If you change your mind (for example, if you recommended deletion because you found no reliable sources, but then someone else found several good ones, and that makes you inclined to keep the article now), then just strikeout (don't delete) your original comment (or the parts of it that you no longer think are accurate) and add a new one.
Most AfD cases are open for about a week, so that many editors have an opportunity to make a recommendation. Long periods of silence at the AfD page are normal.
A "cultural significance" section was added to the page which is nothing more than just trivial mentions of the cookies. It claims that because it is mentioned in diet books, it is important to dieting. The books in the search results given (that's another thing all together; simply linking to a Google search result is not referencing an article) merely give the nutritional value of the cookie. It in no way, shape, or form shows the significance of the cookie, in addition to the thousands upon thousands of other foods that are listed in those books. The other reference was to the same Google search result which shows that it was mentioned in Neil Simon's The Odd Couple. Simply being mentioned in a TV show, play, or movie does not give something notability. Metros (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metros, cultural significance is a very vague term. What I think you are trying to define it is is that cultural significance is how many times the subject is referenced. That is a poor definition. What I think would be a better one is haw many random people know that it exists. Vienna Fingers certainly fit this description. I'm sure you heard about Vienna Fingers before I wrote the article. Most people have. Now, to appease you, I changed the "Cultural Significance" section to a "Trivia" section, and changed some of the wording. Currently, I have not put up seperate references for tdifferent things, but I will soon.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
You're right! I should change the title of that section back to cultural significance! Wikipedia's definition of trivia is completely different than mine! Thanks! Now, you said that because Vienna Fingers were in the famous odd couple play does not mean they are important. But think of Reeses Pieces! Before ET came out, no one had ever heard of them! Reeses pieces are definetely a part of culture now! This is the same thing! Also aren't plays considered a part of culture? Wouldn't that be culturally important then? Anyway, you should reply sometime.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
The section on Vienna Fingers Metros deleted was not trivia. Wikipedia defines trivia as lists of meaningless facts. The section was not a list, nor was it meaningless. It showed how vienna fingers are related to pop culture.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
Belated comment re AFD: I agree with Metros on the referencing point. Going by previous discussions, Google search results are not viewed as valid references here, and the question crops up quite commonly (an example I can find at this instant is here - "Google searches as references"). The general view is that as this is a form of original information gathering - a search to demonstrate some analysis of the material originating from an editor - it comes under WP:NOR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page Vienna Fingers may not be deleted under any circumstance or by any person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask the fudgecicle (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but decrees such as this are not possible. If you want this article, you'll have to prove its notability and provide content beyond a description of the cookie. Metros (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that all future conversation on this subject be moved to the Talk Page for Vienna Fingers. The product's proper spelling has an uppercase "F" -- keeping the article as "Vienna fingers" is incorrect. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the link I provided here and you copied directly from doesn't pass WP standards, it should be removed - not replaced with one that doesn't provide the text being quoted. arimareiji (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the link you provided offers an illegal reproduction of Neil Simon's copyright-protected work. Not only does it fail WP:RS, but it also violates U.S. and international intellectual property laws with the unauthorised reproduction of Mr. Simon's work. Please do not put that link back online again. The link that I originally provided is from the published version of Neil Simon's play, which is recognised by WP:RS, and it is not problematic. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your link may be an acceptable one, but it's not the actual source of the quote. I believe there's a policy or at least a guideline that strenuously criticizes misattributing just for the sake of having "a" source, even if it's not accurate. arimareiji (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Neil Simon wrote that line in the play. The link is to a published version of the Neil Simon play that includes the line. You can cite books as references. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I realize that it may be frustrating to not have a legitimate source for a quote, please don't copy the movie quote verbatim and assert it came from the play. When I tried to look up the source you provided, I saw it was an offline one. So I started digging, trying to find where I could look at it for myself. My region's library s one of the most extensive in the country, and it doesn't have it. It's been out of print for over a decade - it strains credulity that you just happened to find a copy within hours. arimareiji (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be a professional actor and I did "The Odd Couple" on stage some years ago -- I still have the book in question and the lines from the film script are taken verbatim from the original Neil Simon play. (I played Murray the Cop, in case you are wondering.) Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then why are you using the spelling from the TV series and not the play?
Additionally, are you seriously asserting that the line survived letter-for-letter, case-for-case, typographically from the source I quoted to the source you're alleging, in the days before cut-and-paste? arimareiji (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Simon wrote the screenplay for the film; the bulk of the dialogue remained intact. He had nothing to do with the TV show (which may explain why it was actually funnier than the play and movie). As I stated, if you continue to remove proper referenced sources, you will be reported for vandalism. I will welcome conversation on a new subject, but I believe we've run the course with Neil Simon, cookies, WP:RS and anything else connected with this article. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You copied a source verbatim from another discussion, one which I provided. Because it apparently doesn't meet WP standards, when you cut-and-pasted it to this article you claimed it came from an out-of-print book (1965 sourcing) that you just happened to have a copy of. And yet you're using spellings that did not occur until the TV series, years later in 1970. Again, I repeat - your assertions greatly strain credulity. arimareiji (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the English language did not change substantially between 1965 and 1970, I don't see the point of how the spellings differ. You provided a source that was lifted by a web site from the original 1965 text, which was the basis of the 1968 screenplay -- both written by the same man. I am asking you politely to please stop this bickering. If you want to enhance the article, your input is welcome. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has actually been involved with plays, screenplays, movies, books, etc would know that dialogue rapidly mutates and is revised in each succeeding version. It extremely strains credulity that your source, coming from the 1965 play, would give you spellings that didn't come about until post-1970 - which is where the quote originated. arimareiji (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled across this - what's the citecheck about - is there doubt that the script has the quotation? A quick trip to the library or google books could settle that issue pretty quickly. Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact we can even access the text sufficiently. Whatever versions previously discussed, this one at Google Books provides a quotation we can all see.
Oscar: "How about vanilla wafers? Or Vienna fingers? I got everything.
The Odd Couple: A Comedy in Three Acts, By Neil Simon. Published by Random House, 1966, Original from the University of Michigan. Digitized 3 Mar 2008, 116 pages. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming in, Todd. This is what happened. In the DRV for this, Arimareiji quoted text from the Neil Simon play "The Odd Couple," which mentions Vienna Fingers, the subject of the article. The web site pirated the original Neil Simon text -- there is no copyright attribution. I know the play, since I once performed in it, and I have an old copy of the book we used as the script. I dug it out and found the lines. Arimareiji is insisting the line is not in the play and that it is unique to the 1968 film. Neil Simon wrote the screenplay and took the bulk of the dialogue with him. Arimareiji is repeatedly sticking citecheck tags on this attribution, which I have confirmed as being correct. Inappropriate tagging, as I understand it, constitutes vandalism, which is how I identified it in my edit summary. I have warned him twice on his talk to respect the reference, since it meets WP:RS. Unfortunately, he is still putting the tag on the page. Can you please tell us how to fix this problem? Ecoleetage (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ecoleetage, you're continuing to demonstrate that you aren't intimately familiar with the subject matter as you've claimed, whether or not you're an actor. The spelling I was referring to comes from the TV version only. My source misspelled it. It's not from the film version. arimareiji (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gordon, for providing an accurate verbatim quote. Todd - I tried to do just that, but as I've said earlier the book was unavailable. arimareiji (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Gordon's input is the case, then the book I have (which is 1994 copyright) may have incorporated elements of the film into text. I know Mr. Simon rewrote the play over the years, even doing a female version. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems. Arimareiji, let's be friends and work together. This was clearly a hiccup in communications and I hope this didn't cause you any stress. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - thank you, Todd, for providing the link to Gbooks. I'll have to remember that for the future when an offline source's authenticity is in question; it'll beat going to the library every time. And thank you, Gordon, for doing the legwork in finding a reputable quote source. arimareiji (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have no objection to removing the tag (which has been done) - but only if the accurate quote and source are cited (not yet done). I'll come back later, but for now I'm willing to AGF that this will happen. arimareiji (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
