Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuna fish sandwich (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna fish sandwich[edit]

There are several reasons why I feel this article should be deleted. First of all - and most importantly - there are no reliable sources. I have looked for them for nearly half an hour, and can't find any specifically on the tuna sandwich. Secondly, the lead section veers into tuna, not tuna sandwich topics, from the 2nd sentence. Citing StarKist and sentences like "Large chain sub shops such as Subway, Quiznos, and Blimpie often feature tuna subs as a daily deal or featured sub" make it sound like an advertisement. Most if not all nutritional information pertains to food chains in the US, not anywhere else.

Finally, the one reliable source - that Tuna Fish Sandwiches have appeared on the food network - is fallacious, as http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/kicked-up-tuna-melt-recipe/index.html describes a tuna melt - an entirely different culinary delight - which is not even a sandwich, but tuna on toast. The BBC article is about the rarity of tuna itself, not tuna sandwiches. If it was about the rarit yof the sandwiches, I could understand. As it stands, this article patently does not assert notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies notability via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. It has been at least mentioned in 31000 news stories from 1930 to the present alone [1]. The Daily Mail says it has been "the staple of the snatched office lunch for a generation." The New York Times in 1985 called it the "quintessential tuna fish sandwich" and covers it far beyond giving a recipe. This is a famous and highly notable sandwich, not just a random combination of ingredients. See[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Edison (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source points to Tuna Nicoise, pickle-tuna sandwiches, etc. The final three are cookbooks, and the second and third are only trivial mentions. What we need is two sources from the Daily Mail etc describing only the sandwich, not tuna itself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the final source isn't bad, even if it is from a Malaysian Oil worker and part time journalist, not a chef. Can we get another few like that? A foreign language paper with a circulation of 300,000 isn't amazing, but it's OKish. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times articles are not cookbooks, nor is the Daily Mail. And I did not present an exhaustive sampling of the coverage of this sandwich over the last 70 years. And significant coverage in a cook book is still significant coverage, and evidence of notability. The Daily Mail article is also significant coverage and not a cookbook. I don't know what you are calling my "first source." Cite #3 has a tuna melt at the top of the page but scroll down to Brenda's Tuna sandwich. The sources show that major newspapers have called it a "quintessential" sandwich and the "staple" of the office lunch. Other sources I did not include covers numerous people being killed by tunafish sandwiches; if it were human, it would be a notable serial killer! Other sources discuss the problem of mercury in the tuna content, and the high fat content. Inn other words, there are sources to say something encyclopedic about it from multiple reliable sources. Edison (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we add them to the article so that it actually asserts notability? At the moment, it doesn't. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "quintessential" and "staple" quotes should serve as an assertion of notability. I will add them shortly. The other cites will be available in the AFD history for anyone to work into the article. It does not have to be complete and perfected to survive AFD.Edison (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a case of writing a lot about something that could be summed up in 2 sentences. The title explains the whole thing. Tuna fish. Sandwich. End of story. Its really a dictionary entry gone long-winded. WP:NAD also WP:NOTHOW to make a tuna fish sandwich. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument ignores our notability standard of what deserves a standalone article, and could be equally applied to anything else someone didn't like. The article is not a directory entry and is not a how-to. The sources available at Google Books and Google news are sufficient to support a proper encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're going to rag on me, at least get your insults correct. It's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't feel the topic is encyclopedic and it deserves nothing more than a dictionary entry. I don't care how many books it gets mentioned in or news articles someone uses the term in. Of course you can find it, the thing is a common term. Number of mentions isn't what makes something notable. I don't see the notability. If you have any more comments on how you view me, take it to my userpage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting one! At first when I read the article I thought it was a rather clever WP:HOAX. I mean - "Tuna sandwiches in the media"? However on examining the first reference Spokesman review/NY Times, I have to say that it does offer significant coverage from a secondary source. The other sources leave a little to be desired - I ask myself what is the reference about - and the answer is invariably tuna, not tuna sandwiches. And as for the fact that sandwich/sub chains sell tuna sandwiches as their special sometimes, to me offers no justification for the article and is not worth including in the article. Fortunately the inclusion of the The Star article, as well as The Spokesman review satisfies WP:N in my mind, so keep, but give a good cleanup. I suspect the article is more likely to be kept if the Original research/uncited material is removed and less emphasis was given to its inclusion in cookbooks and sandwich chain menus. Paulbrock (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Category:Sandwiches needs filling and this article deserves a place. It needs cleaning up and the crusty bits trimmed. The BBC ref supports the article's claim regarding concerns about the diminishing stocks and that at least one notable sandwich supplier is notably switching to a sustainable source for their tuna sandwiches. Lame Name (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did you know that there are 85 Google News hits with "tuna sandwich" in the title? You do now. Some examples:[7][8][9][10]. And be careful. A Chinese tuna sandwich killed a Korean diplomat[11], another killed a man in a nursing home[12], and another was used by a woman in an attempt to murder her husband.[13] Who knew a simple sandwich could be so deadly? And John Gotti was a fan: "All I want is a good sandwich. You see this sandwich here? This tuna sandwich? That's all I want--a good sandwich."[14] Beautiful. Fences and windows (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A visit to the public library produced noted chef James Beard in "James Beard’s American Cookery" (1972) (Little, Brown), page 811 saying ""Canned flaked tuna is without doubt one of the all-time favorites as a sandwich spread." He then discusses the desirable proportions of celery and mayo, and the possibility of chopped egg and onion. Tracy Seaman in "The tuna fish gourmet(1994," pages vii-x, says that millions of Americans consume one or two tuna fish sandwiches a week, not including tuna melts or tuna salad plates. Seaman says "For many of us, tuna fish is also the stuff of cozy childhood memories.." "The same tuna sandwich, embellished with chopped vegetables, fresh herbs, capers, olives, roasted peppers and the like, is still a staple in most of our adult diets." Not all sandwiches are notable by Wikipedia's standard, but this one is. Edison (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A common food item, with plenty of references to verify that for any disbelievers out there. I use to eat it constantly, before the mercury content made me go numb. Dream Focus 08:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Massively noteable subject - per sources from Fences and windows and those already in the article, there's probably enough material to make a tasty featured article if one was so inclined. Yum! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per FeydHuxtable. Obviously notable, plenty of sources. Granite thump (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those sources mentioning being killed by a tuna sandwich - it wasn't the sandwich, it was the tuna. Mixing it with bread did not make it worse... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - this article "denotes" what a tuna fish sandwich means and what it is about (see WP:NAD), and is well sourced (although admittedly some cites are trivial). There is plenty enough at least for a good article. User:Fences and windows has found some excellent news sourses. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (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.