![]() ![]() 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. 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. They are in some sort of a gray area in the middle. However, They are not like some tree in your backyard. Yes, it is true that they are not as important as, say, Oreos, or even as culturally significant. Again, they are not individual objects, but widespread products. It is safe to say that all products made by them deserve some form of distinction. arimareiji ( talk) 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Reply Vienna Fingers are Kellogs products. And I don't see evidence of notability in your Wiki article. 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. Someone who's eating "Vienna" sausages with their "fingers" doesn't really count. 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. Vienna fingers are important you just don't look deep enough into the subject. If you were to google them, you would find quite a few reviews, and more than 1,430,000 websites that mention them. arimareiji ( talk) 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Reply Vienna fingers do have some cultural significance. "Where are the Vienna fingers?" "On aisle 5 with the other cookies."), that would be a reasonable argument for inclusion. If you can demonstrate that they've ever been spoken of in pop culture, or even outside utilitarian conversations (i.e. 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. 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. In summation, redirecting or deleting Vienna fingers would actually be harmful. The Vienna fingers page in question shows an awful lot more information and notability, not to mention being even longer than the Keebler page. It is barely even mentioned, just as another product Keebler makes. ![]() The Keebler page, if you would look at it carefully, does not show notability of the cookie either. The page it is usually redirected to is the Keebler page. 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. It is true that part of my argument is that the Vienna fingers page has more information than many other stubs (like Chips Deluxe). When you read some of my notes, you must have read them too quickly. Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Reply ![]() the same approach could be taken with Chips Deluxe, Hydrox (cookie), and any other stubs for Keebler products. Overall, I think that the merge might be the best outcome. Add the the article to get it deleted (possibly resulting in WP:AfD, if someone objects to the proposed deletion).Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles.Participate in project-related deletion discussions.Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |