Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vienna fingers


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vienna fingers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There seems to be no notability for this cookie. The references provided are a link to the company's site which provides nutrition information and product description of the cookie. The other reference is to an article that never mentions the cookie at all. Please also see discussion at Talk:Vienna fingers. A merge was suggested there, but I'm not sure what would be merged to the company's article other than a short product description of the cookie being vanilla wafer and filling. Metros (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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) 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle
 * Where is the notability proven through reliable sources? The article says "it kept the company afloat" (more or less), but there's nothing there to provide that. Metros (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The one and only place I found any historical information about Vienna Fingers was on the Wikipedia page Sunshine Biscuits. A few months ago, I tried to use that as one of my references, but you shot it down right away. Recently, I put up the one reference given for that page, assuming it would have the same information. That particular article did not have enough references, and it was not deleted, so it seemed correct. However, Sunshine Biscuits is a Fortune 500 company, and as we know from the article, kept it afloat. Thus, Vienna Fingers are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask the fudgecicle (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in any reference that says "Vienna fingers is the reason why Sunshine Biscuits stayed afloat." Here is the extent of the mention of Vienna fingers in the Sunshine Biscuit article: "Sunshine also originated Vienna Fingers cookies, which are now sold under the Keebler brand."  That's it.  And Sunshine Biscuits is not a Fortune 500 company; it's not even a Fortune 1000 company (see this listing.  Metros (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuing from the discussion page for Vienna fingers, where I came in as a third-opinion. The best argument I thought fudgecicle had was that you can get 4730 Google hits for "Vienna fingers" as a phrase (1.4m as separate words, but mostly hits such as "picking up Vienna sausages with your fingers"). Most of them are just utilitarian commercial links, a few of them were "reviews," and none of the ones I saw showed cultural significance. By contrast "ladyfingers" gets almost 300,000 hits, most of which showed cultural significance IMO - books, history, recipes, being used as a name, etc. Existing, being sold, and apparently being enjoyed by some aren't criteria for notability.

Support deletion. arimareiji (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC) What I truly meant above is that Kelloggs, the mother company of S.B., is a fortune 500. Now, if Neil Simon mentioned Vienna Fingers in his Odd Couple script, that makes Vienna fingers culturally important. The Odd Couple was a very famous movie (or TV show, or whatever), though I don't know what it's about. One of the discussors mentioned that many of the links were ads; well, that also makes it important. If a product has large scale advertising like that, that means it is important. Furthermore, the fact that vienna fingers are mentioned in several diet books means that they are important to fat people because they are tasty and healthier than other things. This should make everyone sure that these references provide notability. I will have to put up some more info about the Odd Couple thing on the Wikipedia Article.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle TV shows are part of pop culture. If vienna fingers are in a TV show, especially a famous one, that means that they are a part of the culture. Therefore, vienna fingers are definitevly part of American culture. Q.E.D.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. While we're talking Google hits I would point out that there are 1450 Google News hits and 74 at Google Books. I don't have enough interest in the subject to go through all of those to find references to add to the article, but the sheer numbers make notability practically certain. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the news search results look like they're ads/circulars in the papers giving you the price of the cookies. There are also a percentage of them that are articles on the company that used to make them where it's listed as one of the products they made.  The book results mostly appear to be diet books where it gives the caloric value/other nutritional counts for the cookie (and, also, it appears that Neil Simon mentioned Vienna fingers in his script for The Odd Couple).  I'm not sure that any of these mentions provides notability.  Metros (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Metros's argument, but I admit they are quite tasty. Sam  Blab 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it's mentioned in a notable TV show doesn't mean it's notable. Sam  Blab 20:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that if someone mentioned me in a famous TV show, I would be notable enough for an article? Sam  Blab 11:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the first episode (I think?) of the Brit version of Coupling, Jeff mentions "unflushables" (aka floaters) as a metaphor for relationships you can't get rid of. Does that mean they need their own article?... Good grief, wait a minute - there is a subsection of his page devoted to that term! ;-) Fortunately, there's no mention of the objects that prompted the metaphor - nor is there an article devoted to them. But they did merit a disambiguation.
 * (Sorry, just thought the discussion could use a little reductio ad absurdum humor.) arimareiji (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Sam; that would make you much more culturally important.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle See? It does mean cultural notability! Arimaj-whatever agrees! Now, the only thing is that no one has come up with a definition for "cultural notability". Every example I have given is evidently not "cultural notability". If someone could actually give a definition for once, I'm sure finding a good reason would be easy. Until then, no one should really have any right to say what is or isn't "cultural notability".Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle
 * Strong and speedy keep A very simple Google search turns up considerable media coverage: . Write-ups include the New York Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Deseret News, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, Contra Costa Times...even Noo Joisey's beloved The Record has written this up.  Plus, regarding Neil Simon's mention of the cookie in "The Odd Couple" -- that play was written in 1965.  The article clearly needs enhancing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it might be instructive if you include examples of the actual usage in context to show why there's notability. See Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions wrt Google hits.
 * For example, "Vienna fingers have long been considered a cultural icon" by (www.doesntexist.com) would show it.
 * But it's highly open to argument whether "Keebler, the maker of Chips Deluxe, Hydrox and Vienna Fingers" would. arimareiji (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions is an opinion essay, not Wikipedia policy -- people are entitled to their opinions, of course, but let's not mistake opinions for policy. Opinions notwithstanding, the fact remains that this particular product has been around for decades (a lot longer than all of us, I imagine) and is cited by major media as one of the flagship products of the Keebler organization -- which, logically, would be a confirmation of its notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Did reliable sources write about this cookie? Yes, so it passes the general notability guideline. And if reliable sources have written about other baked goods, then those other baked goods are notable too. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ecoleetage (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as the Google News links show, the cookies are the subject multiple non-trivial articles. - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep anything made by elves in a tree must be notable. Oh, and the secondary sources, too.   P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 12:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pharmboy. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.