Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla Sandwich

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. czar 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Sandwich[edit]

Gorilla Sandwich (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)

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 09:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was only one disambiguation to be found pepper!? I fixed it via dablinks: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Gorilla_Sandwich. Regarding WP:GNG Keep I counted twenty-eight citations in the article that are nontrivial, secondary citations that are not original research. Each of them features the Gorilla Sandwich and supports notability. Sources with especially high editorial reliability and integrity that are included: The Palisade Post, The Huffingtonpost, Die Zeit (German Weekly Paper) and The Daily Titan. I counted another four citations that support the notability of the patent itself, which is inseparable from the Gorilla Sandwich as a whole that’s why I included it into this article instead of creating a new article for the “cucumber sandwich patent”. As it goes for advertising I counted three citations and one direct link that direct to the official page for Gorilla Sandwich. As those can be eliminated from the article I feel they are helpful to illustrate the product. One link refers to the history, the other verifies the ingredients on the label and the third its market place. All three are intended to be informative and not advertising for the product. The same counts for some of the evocative description of the Gorilla Sandwich in the article. I don’t see them as advertisement but as descriptive of the product. Please note that all them are cited and secondary sources. Vonlandsberg (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
    • This article is plain promotion for the sandwich, it is not a neutral description. And please, read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. What this article needs are independent (not in any way related to the subject), reliable (no social media or fora), prior published sources. The Banner talk 22:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non of the sources are social media! And I did read this Wikipedia:Reliable Sources "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." As stated above the article serves all those criteria. You might be confusing neutral point of view of the author of the article with descriptive language referenced with reliable secondary sources. Again as already stated above those are not my opinions which are incorporated in the article but opinions found in reliable verifiable secondary sources. Please be specific so I can better understand what you understand as promotional. If a notable product such as the Gorilla Sandwich is found by the majority of the sources as exciting, fun, healthy and unique should it be described as plain!
  • Here is a breakdown in quantities of citation links by category: Gorilla Sandwich Official Site = 3; Patent & Trademark =3; Featured articles in Blogs that are authoritative in Raw Food Diabetic and General Health = 19; Gorilla Sandwich creator’s official site = 3; News article = 3; Raw Food & Health Forums = 9,Book = 1

Vonlandsberg (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And when you read WP:RS, you will see that at least 3+19+3+9 sources are unsuitable (the rest I should have a look at). But even, the style and tone of the article is that of an advertisement. The Banner talk 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among those 19 featured blog posts are 3 citations that are sourced from the Huffingtonpost written by reputable health editors. I understand that the forum sources by itself are insufficient but they were meant just like the official website sources to illustrate the article better and support the better sources. However if I were to strip the article of all the forum sources and some of the blog sources that are not as well know as the Huffingtonpost the article would still have enough sources to pass WP:GNG. As wiki editors we have to learn to distinguish between reliable blogs und and not reliable blogs. And even so, when an unknown blogger supports an opinion that is in consensus with the opinion of a better know blogger at the Huffingtonpost it should be weighted into the overall equation. The sources should be reliable and verifiable of course but as not all sources are equal and as they shouldn't be self serving they should serve the article as a whole foremost. As mentioned above please point out where you think the article is not written in a neutral tone.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a major edit and toned it down in favor of neutral description.Vonlandsberg (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an article on a product that can be compared with the Gorilla Sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie. It has been around much longer but it is in the same vein as the Gorilla Sandwich as it is a unique patented food product. Vonlandsberg (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every article is judged on its own merits, so it is useless to compare. But when you look at Twinkie, you will see that is an article that is neutral in style and tone. And it has only independent and reliable sources... The Banner talk 22:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing to judge might be useless but comparing to construct is always helpful. Would you please be so kind point out what exactly you don't consider as neutral. Neutral is an ideal that is worth striving for when writing a wikipedia article but will never be satisfied.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be true, the neutral description ends after the first word "2004". Are you in any way related to the subject? The Banner talk 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious advertorial. And if you're adding beforeitsnews as a source? You don't understand Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Wikipedian my relation to the subject is writing a good article about it. The article had over 40 citations including: 1 x The Palisade Post, 3 X The Huffingtonpost, 1 x Die Zeit (German Weekly Paper) and 1 X The Daily Titan. All reliable, verifiable and good sources that were contributing to a full and factual description of the subject. Unfortunately they have been removed now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can comment as much as you want, but only !vote once. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff.Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Such as the blog posts by the Huffingtonpost editor. Vonlandsberg (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All assertion by the proponents in favor of deleting the article fail according to WP:NPOV and are themselves biased. Proponents mistaken descriptive sections and sections that are attributed to particular sources in the text for advertisement. Proponents fail to make any efforts of rewriting passages or sections of the article to achieve a more neutral tone but instead delete entire valuable sections that are serving the article well and supporting WP:GNG. The article should be restored to it's original state.Vonlandsberg (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, now we are biased? Do you mind that I take that as proof that you are biased and in same way related to the subject, possibly as inventor. There is no proof outside Wikipedia that the sandwich is a well known one, with just 80 hits at Google. The Banner talk 09:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even your breath is biased by the subject matter of your own existence. Neutrality is an abstract concept not a reality. Your are taking style and taste as the grounds to make a judgement. Tolerance and constructive criticism should be practiced not destruction and fanaticism. The article has over 40 independent citations including many reliable and verifiable sources that proof notability as I have shown many times in this discussion. Our wikipedia guidelines state clearly that we always should try to improve an article before destroying it. I provided more then enough sources that could be mined to improve on the article. This article clearly complies with the guidelines. This article has been written in a very descriptive and colorful and informational way but nonetheless factual and neutral. Believe me if the Huffington Post writes three times about the Gorilla Sandwich it is notable.Vonlandsberg (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, not when you have passing remarks like this, what refers to "gorilla sandwich" as a type of filled sandwich, not even to the type you are so desperately promoting. The Banner talk 14:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ashley Koff is an international renown expert in her field and she is referring to the trademark Gorilla Sandwich that was created by Alex Stenzel that she has most likely seen somewhere which supports notability. Also her listing the Gorilla Sandwich among recommended snacks supports notability. The way she describes it matches the evocative and uniqueness of the product which itself supports notability [1]. I have listed 23 recipes ideas in the article that other people came up with that all refer to Gorilla Sandwich as the trademark again this supports notability.Vonlandsberg (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions, but not by Vonlandsberg.  Sandstein  19:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing independent reliable sources showing the notability of this sandwich. In the current version [2] there are 12 sources.
    • 1 and 2 are to the sandwich company's site (and the first is just an image of the nutritional info label).
    • 3 (Aushenker) is about the sandwich's creator, and just mentions the sandwich in passing in a few words.
    • 4 (Paiz) is a journalism student writing in a student newspaper.
    • 5 (Wright) I can't evaluate since it is a dead link.
    • 6 (Metafilter) is a passing mention in a blog.
    • 7 (Improbable Research) makes no claim that this invention is important. The site says "We collect improbable research. Real research, about anything and everything, from everywhere. Research that's maybe good or bad, important or trivial, valuable or worthless."
    • I'm not sure what to make of 8. A US patent for an "ornamental design for a cucumber sandwich." That's the entire patent claim... an ornamental design for a cucumber sandwich. Surprising as it may be that it was granted, I see nothing notable here. Obtaining a patent is not notable.
    • 9 (Sealed Crustless Sandwich) is the abstract for a US patent for crust-less PBJs (not for the cucumber sandwich)
    • 10 (Smith) is an article about the crust-less PBJs that mentions the cucumber sandwich as an example of "Sandwich-related patents in particular reflect the range of American culinary ingenuity and absurdity." It does not sate whether the cucumber sandwich patent is an example of "ingenuity" or "absurdity". The article also points out that the PBJ patent was eventually rejected.
    • 11 (Stenzel) I can't evaluate. The site lists patent abstracts but the link is dead.
    • 12 (Wright) apparently mentions the cucumber sandwich, but context is everything. The book is subtitled "the Craziest Inventions Ever Devised", is based on the cult website www.patentlysilly.com, is written "from the unique perspective of a stand-up comic", and "features an incredible range of patents for inventions that strain the boundaries of imagination, taste, and any form of usefulness. In short, they are ridiculous."
None of these are reliable sources to show notability. Perhaps there is a shred of notability to being held up to ridicule, but not enough in my opinion. Meters (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have re edited the article it now has 45 citations. One of the links "beforeitsnews" was blacklisted since I wrote the article.I don't know what happened to the Patent Silly link but here is another link that refers to it and explains why the patent was issued [3] Vonlandsberg (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea to restore the SPAM. It will really help to get this article removed. The Banner talk 07:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortened article, restored citations and fixed dead links.Vonlandsberg (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Jevansen (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went through the article and deleted all of the forums, self published blogs, etc. Only one decent reference was left (Daily Titan) plus two or three iffy ones. I looked for more solid references, but couldn't find any. Bottom line, not enough notability to keep. Nowa (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three citations that were deleted linked to a reputable editor at the Huffington Post (Ashley Koff) which is not self published.Vonlandsberg (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. When I tried to use the link in the article, I got a security warning from my browser (Firefox). When I tried to search Huffington Post directly, I could not find the article. Can you provide another link to the article?--Nowa (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have found just one of the Huffington articles ([4]). The whole section is nothing more than a passing mention, in fact just describing a type of sandwich: 5. Gorilla sandwich anyone? Got an appetite that won’t quit? Grab a cucumber — hollow it out by using an iced tea spoon to remove the seeds — and stuff it with hummus. King Kong says Yum to this one. Nothing worthy. A reputable editor does not make a mention notable. The Banner talk 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the three links from the Huffington Post that are talking about the Gorilla Sandwich:[5],[6],[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, you see "health.com" as Huffington? And your second link (safe link) is nothing more than a passing mention. Just like the third as I had already mentioned above. Your health thingy is nothing more than Gorilla sandwich Snacks Stuff 1 hollowed-out cucumber with 1/3 cup hummus. Total value of you three so-called-huffington-post articles is plain ZERO. The Banner talk 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I made I mistake. You are correct it was actually a Huffington Post article by Ashley Koff that was featured at health.com.Vonlandsberg (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Huff Post articles are suitable references for the article (please use the safe link). However, they do not confer substantial notability since they are merely passing references. My vote for delete remains the same.Nowa (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is notable about the Gorilla Sandwich is the mere existence of it and the fact that it didn't exist before 2004 even though cucumbers have been around for a very long time. And the existence of it has been supported by more then 40 sources independent from the official site(including Germany, Italy and Mexico). What ever the predicate of the subject maybe is irrelevant it's the mere mention of it which supports notability since it acknowledges something that didn't exist before. A picture of it as a source or the mere mentioning of the trademark is sufficient! If 40 unreliable resources support the exact subject matter of 3 reliable resources which is the existence of the sandwich itself are then not the statements of the those unreliable resources become reliable at least in this particular case?Vonlandsberg (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking along the same lines as I reviewed all of the forums and self published blogs that mention Gorilla sandwich. There is certainly some notability in the blogosphere. I just don't think that's enough, however, for an encyclopedia like this. 40 forum postings just means 40 people found it noteworthy. A publication, however, needs much wider notability to include a subject. As far as the three reliable sources go, only one of them talks about the sandwich in any detail and that's a student newspaper. The others have just passing mentions.--Nowa (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. mr. Vonlandsberg, unreliable sources are no credit to an article. A trademark on its own is not notable. And your pushing of the Huffington Post-articles (of which one is not from Huffington Post) is only diminishing the notability by casting doubt. The Banner talk 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is verifiable via the official site that it did sell at 1o major health food stores in Los Angeles including 6 Whole Food Markets as one of the first raw foods in California.[8] That does ad weight to the overall notability of the sandwich. Though Raw Foodism is a fringe market nonetheless notable.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC
  • When I said 3 reliable sources I was including health.com as one of them. Health.com list no.1 in organic searches for the keyword health. It is certainly just as a reliable as the Huffintgon Post or as Forbes Magazine which list just behind it in the search.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
So what, nobody is selling your sandwiches where I live. The Banner talk 22:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open almost two weeks and no-one except the article creator has argued that this is notable and should be kept. Probably time for a close decision. Meters (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2016 (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/Gorilla_Sandwich&oldid=1078229267"