Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen - marginal sources, but a clear majority in favour of deletion. WilyD 07:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Fingers (plant)[edit]

Salty Fingers (trademark) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This product, as well as its makers, do not meet notability guidelines as set out in Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH Mootros (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In the meantime, the nominator has moved the article to Salty Fingers (trademark). When this discussion is finished, I shall remove the page to Salty Fingers (plant). For one has to distinguish between the article and its heading (taxonomy). Whilst the former focuses on the subject the latter focuses on the reader who seeks information. And the heading must be such that the reader will find the information sought. In fact, I have given it quite some heed when i decided for "Salty Fingers (plant)" rather than "Salty Fingers (vegetable)". However, "trademark" as a part of the title is very much beside what a reader needs. I would appreciate commets. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article should not be deleted because the plant, i.e. the topic in question, is of relevance and it is well-sourced. The references will show that "Salty Fingers" are a ingredient in Haute Cuisine. Apart from that, the nomination by Mootros (talk is merely a retaliation for the fact that I object his vandalism w.r.t Bettina Wulff. He has also requested speedy deletion. A glance at my and his talk page will confirm this. Akolyth (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of your argument is that WP:ITSNOTABLE, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are quite right. The reasoning was rather short - I admit. Now, Salty Fingers are an ingredient in particular used by Chefs in Haute Cuisine restaurants. As has been already mentioned below, trawling through the net you will find ample resources that confirm that Salty Fingers is on the menus of quite a many upmarket (e.g. http://www.kloster-hornbach.de/en/restaurants/gourmet-restaurant/refugium) and Haute Cuisine restaurants. It appears to me that it might be a succulent, halophyte plant that grows in salt marshes or mangroves. If so it might be similar to glasswort, pickleweed and samphire. It would be a Salicornia, thus. However, this is only my personal speculation and thus I didn't mention this in the article. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject is notable and the references are reliable. Nowadays, one can find Salty Fingers on the menus of every other haute cuisine restaurant. Moreover, it is covered both by cooking documentaries and by cooking magazines. The references given are only a starting point. The article shall remain. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since when are blogs reliable? With most sources cited there is no editorial control. Mootros (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are fine. A Bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Commonly used ingredient in kitchens. Salty Fingers/Samphire (in Dutch: zeekraal) is used by restaurants with Michelin stars of with the Bib Gourmant, as mentioned here and here. This article mentions the commercial farming (!) and promotion in the Dutch province of Zeeland. The Banner talk 16:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have an article about samphire. Why would we want another about the same thing but with a childish trademarked neologism for a title? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide proof that "Salty Fingers" is samphire? As regards your comment below I doubt it but please feel free to provide it. And for what concerns this article, it firstly, doesn't mention Salty Fingers, and secondly, it it about a samphire which grows in Europe. However, Salty Fingers grow in tropical Asia and America. So this article can hardly deal with Salty Fingers. In so far, Salty Fingers need an article all by itself. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Banner made the claim that this is samphire, not me. If I understand you correctly you are saying that the fact that the sources linked by The Banner are not about Salty Fingers means that we should keep this article. That's very strange logic. What we need is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are about this 8-month-old trademark for a plant/ingredient. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil, I have read your comment now a few times and I still don't get the point. The key issue which I need your help with is "The Banner". Could you please tell me what you mean by it? However, in case you should refer to the first sentence (is that called a "Banner"?), which contains a reference to sea bean, please note that the reference says "...salicorne such as Samphire..." And this does not mean that "Salty Fingers" are samphire. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Banner" is the editor who made the claim above that this is samphire, and claimed that sources about samphire demonstrate the notability of Salty Fingers. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the help, Phil. As the name "The Banner" was printed in gothic letters I didn't really read it. But for what concerns his remark I think you may misunderstand it a little. He does not say that Salty Fingers is samphire - none of his references say so. But he points out that both (the latter being called 'zeekraal') are being used in The Netherlands. And his examples for zeekraal show that Salicornioideae find culinary use in haute cuisine restaurants. However, should there be proof for your hypothesis I would support to have both articles merged. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following table on Seavegetable shall help you two in your discussion. It clearly shows that Salty Fingers is not samphire. I will add it to the article, too. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a look at p24 of this article you will find that "zeekraal" and "Salty Fingers" are to differenr things in Dutch. However, both are being used just as "The Banner" said. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this anything other than a silly trendy name for samphire? If not it should be merged. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I have wondered about this myself, but I can find absolutely nothing which would confirm this. And mind you, it might be either Salicornia or Sarcocornia which brings different varieties into the play. This said, I somehow wonder if the proprietor of the trademark even tend to sell different varities under the same trademark which would be an appripriate work-around in order to cater to seaonsonal availability of one variety or the other. However, even if all that were the case I still see a substantial added-value in a distinct article as it helps the user who wants to find information on Salty Fingers which he or she may know from a restaurant's menu. Accordingly, this article could be biased into the culinary use of the plant. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't even confirm such basic facts as what plant species (singular or plural) this is then I don't see how we can have a meaningful article about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The meaningfulness of an article does not solely depend on a precise botanical classification. This holds in particular for a food-related article. But I agree that the botanical classification would be most helpful. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pls note the article is not about a plant but about a trademark. Mootros (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was already discussed above. Akolyth (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 07:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relister's comment - There's obviously nothing wrong with having both a botanical article and a culinary article (e.g., beef vs. cow), but what I can't identify from this discussion (nor easily in non-English sources) is whether sourcing really is sufficient for WP:N or not, on which there's some asserted disagreement but no real discussion. WilyD 07:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, this article is about a plant which is sold under the name "Salty Fingers" which is a trademark. But it is a plant still. And for what concerns your request for sources, please have a look at (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6). These references will show you that "Salty Fingers" are on the menu of nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant. There are more references still, but I think that these and the ones in the article shall suffice. Akolyth (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable trademark for a non-notable product sold by a non-notable company! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed above - the article is about a plant and a trademark which refers to that very plant. Secondly, I would appreciate if you didn't vandalise the article in future. Akolyth (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that the article is about a plant which finds quite some culinary use. This is why I consider it of substantial added-value for WP:Food and Drink. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is about a plant. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have redirected the page to where it belongs. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, I would consider any specific plant species as notable, but the lack of references in scientific/botanical publications gives me some doubts. Cavarrone (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Salty Fingers is a notable plant. MountWassen (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— MountWassen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's take a look at the available sources. From the article (using the reference numbering from the current version:
  • 1 is a blog with an eleven-word sentence about salty fingers. An unreliable source without significant coverage.
  • 2 is a trademark listing. A primary source without significant coverage.
  • 3 is from the trademark holder's web site. Not independent.
  • 4 is an advertisement with no content about salty fingers apart from a picture. Not independent and not significant coverage.
  • 5 mentions salty fingers in a recipe, but says nothing more about them. Not significant coverage.
  • 6 mentions salty fingers in a caption, but the associated text mentions them as "Queller-Tempura". Dictionaries that I have consulted translate "Queller" as "samphire" or "salicornia", so this is referring to a dish of one of these plants in batter, not "a sea bean growing along the coasts of tropical America and Asia". Not about this topic, and not significant coverage anyway.
  • 7 has a passing mention without even a sentence about salty fingers. Not significant coverage.
  • 8 is an advertisement in a blog, complete with "©Koppert Cress" and text directly translated from reference 3. Not reliable and not independent.
  • 9 is the best of a bad bunch, with a few sentences about salty fingers in the preamble to a recipe. I note that it was published before the trade mark for this product was applied for. Borderline significant coverage.
I've spent long enough on this for the moment, but will check though the other sources listed in this discussion later. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, you are continously re-iterating one and only one argument which is Not significant coverage'. And only for sources 3 and 8 your statement is Not independent. Now let's have a look at it. There are nine references given and you really want to say that there is not significant coverage? This needs to be squared with your last sentence in which you concede not to have checked the references that have been provided in the discusssion. Your position does not sound plausible. And if you had a close look at ref 4. you would be able to see that Salty Fingers and samphire are two different plants. I have advised you (and Victor) to do so days ago (see above) and you haven't done so, obviously. To sum up, nine sources (including two dependent sources) are coverage enough for any article at Wikipedia. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am saying that sources 1-8 certainly do not constitute sugnificant coverage, and that it would be a stretch to consider source 9 to do so. I haven't yet had time to write a detailed review of the additional sources listed in this article, but will try to get round to it today. I understand that Salty Fingers and samphire are different plants - that is precisely what shows that the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is using the phrase in a different sense, as it descibes the same thing in the text as "samphire tempura" and in the caption as "salty fingers". That source is therefore irrelevant to this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To consider germany's most distinguished newspaper, the Francforter Algemeene Zeitung irrelevant is most imaginative!!! That is tantamount to considering Le Monde irrelevant, which I no Frenchman would ever do. I start to have quite a many doubts as regards "Phil"... A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant when it is writing about a dish of samphire tempura, not the plant described in this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Akolyth is right. Nine sources (incl. two dependent sources) are enough. Phil Bridger is simply repeating his completly wrong assumption that Salty Fingers is samphire. We've been through all of this. So let's simply keep the article. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not making any claim that salty finders is samphire. As I explained above that claim was made by User:The Banner, rendering the sources that he or she listed irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Banner" has not made such a claim. This was discussed above. However, you keep bringing up this claim over and over. Now, kindly do not keep revisiting discussions that were closed long before. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the discussion above, noting who wrote what. This is the edit where The Banner claimed that this was samphire, offering sources that are about samphire, not salty fingers. It is impossible to give this article proper consideration when you continually lie about what I have written. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, kindly refrain from reopening arguments solved long ago. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Akolyth and you who have reopened old arguments - I simply provided an analysis of the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now let's look at the additional sources that have been offered in this discussion:
  • This is a mention on a menu, with no content other than these two words.
  • These three sources are about samphire, with no mention of salty fingers.
  • This is a mention in a recipe. Nothing beyong the two words "salty fingers", except that the appearance of samphire as another ingredient confirms that they are not the same.
  • These are more menus that do no more than mention salty fingers.
  • This article from a web site called The Test Kitchen has one sentence about salty fingers: "At the recent SIAL in Montreal, attendees sampled "Salty Fingers", a sea vegetable with crunch!".
  • This article in the Bangkok Post mentions salty fingers in passing without saying anything about them: "The pop-in-the-mouth dairy dainty was followed by a very tasty corn salad (200 baht if ordered a la carte) featuring tandoor-roasted corn kernels served with salty fingers and freeze-dried corn powder as a dry dressing." As with the New Straits Times article cited in the article it predates the trade mark application and doesn't capitalise the name, so it seems to be being used generically rather than for the specific KoppertCress commercial product that was the original subject of this article.
I think I've covered all of the sources that have been cited in either the article or this discussion. If I've missed any then please let me know. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you have precisely covered (again) the salient point - "Salty Fingers" is a plant which is an ingredient in nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant. Thank you so much. However, you are back where we started from. You truly have a tendency of reiterating yourself. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the salient point. As far as Wikipedia notability guidelines go the salient point is whether there has been significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. And, anyway, half a dozen or so is not "nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant", and I am not reiterating myself, as this is the first time I have provided a detailed review of each of the sources offered. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Time to come off the fence. The test for notability is that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My analysis of the sources offered in the article and in this discussion only finds one independent reliable source with as much as a sentence about salty fingers, this article in the New Straits Times, which has about 150 words in a preamble to a recipe, without giving any concrete information about what salty fingers are. I have been unable to find any other independent reliable sources with significant coverage. This hardly constitutes the significant coverage required, and is only one source. I held off from expressing a firm opinion previously because I had hoped that those editors who claimed that this was notable would respond to my analysis with better sources, because I recognise that there is a strong bias against gastronomy in Wikipedia, but the only response has been misrepresentation and belligerence, so I can only conclude that they are unable to find such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your tongue! There was never any misrepresentation and belligerence. There is absolutely no justification for your wrongful accusations. But if you ever had a look at yourself you'd find yourself in quite an awkward position, for it was you to use intolerable and inappropriate language like "childish" and "stupid". And now, you even resort to libel. Besides, your analysis is wrong - the references are fine. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation. Two editors (including you) accused me of repeating the claim that salty fingers and samphire are the same when I did no such thing, and concentrated on this false accusation rather than the substance of what I wrote. Misreprentation. Misreprentation. You and another editor reopened an old discussion about whether salty fingers are samphire and then you twice accused me of doing so. Misreprentation. An editor accused me of reiterating myself when my previous edits were a one-by-one analysis of the sources, which had not been performed previously in this discussion. Rather than just saying "the references are fine" tell us the specific references where my analysis is wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, as regards "childish" and "silly" (not "stupid"), I didn't direct those at any person, but at the name "salty fingers", and I stand by that. It's the type of name that a parent would use when trying to get children to eat something that they claim not to like. I can't, for the life of me, imagine why a serious restaurant would want to use such baby-talk in a menu that's written for adults. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject itself is notable and the coverage is sufficient. I do not demand more references than were given in the article. Wikipedia's key idea is to provide content rather than to prevent it. And a notable subject like Salty Fingers must be kept. Apparently, this discussion has gone a little out of hand. CeesBakker (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— CeesBakker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— SirAppleby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • The Bangkok Post and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung articles don't have as much as a sentence about salty fingers, so how is that significant coverage? And the FAZ article equates salty fingers with Queller-Tempura (samphire tempura), so, as our article is not about samphire, is using the phrase "salty fingers" to describe something other than the subject of our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— CamillePontalec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation in relation to this discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I like the name and it's general usage is interesting, the most common being in reference to the sea: The seas salty fingers reaching in to spoil drinking water for people. Norway's North Sea inlet fjords being referred to as salty fingers. Ocean fishermen using their salty fingers to clean fish, tie deft knots in their nets. "The sea breeze tangling its salty fingers through my hair." Salty fingers from eating peanuts from those little bowls set out in bars. Peshawari kebab being long, salty fingers of soft ground beef.[1]. Salty fingers that comes from making ice cream.[2]
    However, I didn't find anything on salty fingers related to the nominated AfD topic. I don't think the underlying plant is specific to KoppertCress (there's no mention of the plant being patented), so there would be no reason to redirect the article to the Wikipedia article on the underlying plant. The article doesn't even mention the underlying plant (trade secret?) or its scientific classification, so its hard to tell. The product grows along the coasts of tropical America, but salty fingers is not US trademarked. (search "salty fingers" at TESS). The European trademark[3] covers "Agricultural and horticultural products and grains not included in other classes, including fresh fruits, vegetables and microgreens," so I don't see this topic being limited to one, identified plant sold by Koppert Cress B.V. I only found about eight articles having recipes that merely mention an ingredient "available from koppertcress.com," so it is unlikely koppertcress doesn't meet WP:GNG and there would be no reason to redirect Salty Fingers (plant) to koppertcress.com (a cool name). However, the Dutch vegetable and fruit producing company Koppert Cress appears to meet WP:GNG, so those of you iVoting keep may want to write a Koppert Cress Wikipedia article. If we had more information on the scientific classification of the plant that is covered by the trademark, we may be able to find more information. As it stands, I don't see this plant/trademark topic receiving received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salty_Fingers_(plant)&oldid=1068982137"