Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuna fish sandwich

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 Keep. Eluchil404 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuna fish sandwich

Tuna fish sandwich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

What next: separate articles for sandwiches with every type of filling? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Okay, okay, I give in! The consensus seems to be that it's worth keeping and I'm admitting defeat. I don't know if I can 'call' a closure and a keep (I'm not an admin) so I'll leave that to someone with the buttons. Amusing discussion and edit summaries though! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is an American classic. Carol Johnson 7:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a pretty common sandwich. Even many mundane subjects deserve coverage in an encyclopedia. The sourcing does need improvement. Nick Graves 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: As ridiculous as it seems, these are notable sandwiches (this and this. - Rjd0060 00:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per mundane & pb&j. --Evb-wiki 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article cites three sources, but they are not secondary sources (WP:PSTS) since they don't "draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Therefore, they don't establish notability. I think tuna sandwiches can be covered in the sandwich article. — Ksero 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The sandwich article lists dozens of sandwiches already, each with its own article. If the sandwich article covered each of them, it would be too long. I can see merging the article with Tuna salad, however. Nick Graves 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a cooking guide. SYSS Mouse 02:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That's true, though I think that's a criterion for improving an article, rather than deleting it. Nick Graves 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook. PB&J is more significantly notable than a tuna fish sandwich. Every type of sandwich does not deserve an article Pilotbob 02:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • True, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, though a description of typical ingredients and preparation methods is perfectly acceptable in an article about food. No doubt PB&J is more notable than a tuna salad sandwich, but that does not mean that the latter does not also meet the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And it is true that not every sandwich deserves its own article, as there are likely millions of types of sandwiches, and most of them not widely known. Such is not the case with a tuna salad sandwich, which is widely known, and served in just about every sandwich shop, and many other restaurants besides. Nick Graves 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tuna salad, as that's exactly where Tuna sandwich points to. You can't tune an AFD debate, but you can tune a fish. --Sigma 7 06:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering if maybe the redirect should go the other way. After all, have you ever seen tuna salad served in a form other than a sandwich, or its close sibling, the wrap? I haven't, and I suspect that any other serving method is exceptional. Nick Graves 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Btw, I'd also like to direct the editors' attention to the real tuna sandwich. Maybe Tuna salad, Tuna salad sandwich, and Tuna sandwich could/should each have their own article. (Also, isn't "tuna fish" kinda redundant?) --Evb-wiki 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable sandwich like the PB&J and the Fluffernutter. Captain Infinity 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a perfectly good, notable cuisine. I've seen both on menus, so keep both the salad and the sandwich. Bearian 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete seems non-notable. what's next? a egg salad sandwich article? chicken sandich? roast beef sandwich? You could start creating a never ending amount of "sandwich" articles. Bjewiki 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Your slippery slope argument does not carry any logic here. I gladly and speedily deleted Ham and cheese croissant as a NN sandwich, but tuna fish is notable in American cuisine. Bearian 16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion is making me hungry. Captain Infinity 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Transwiki http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook for the recipe. jonathon 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Is there any history to the 'tuna fish sandwich'? What else do we know about it? Why is it an American classic? And so on. Mindraker 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, take a look at it now. I never knew it was so fascinating. Bearian 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment That makes the page better. There's more valuable material now on the page. Mindraker 09:56, 25 October 2007 (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.