259:
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.
531:
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 Knowledge (XXG)'s standard, but this one is.
372:. 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.
488:
150:
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.
149:
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
530:
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
258:
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
463:
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
157:
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
497:
344:
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.
287:
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
241:
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.
201:
630:
415:
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.
251:
236:
195:
407:. 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
198:
222:
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
82:
403:, 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
311:. 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.
282:
191:
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
167:
435:
77:
184:
659:
609:
592:
571:
540:
518:
473:
450:
425:
354:
328:
297:
268:
215:
142:
548:
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.
626:
278:
247:
232:
180:
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
163:
400:
192:
188:
622:
274:
243:
228:
159:
109:
104:
113:
96:
381:
61:
486:
484:
17:
583:
and those already in the article, there's probably enough material to make a tasty featured article if one was so inclined. Yum!
181:
408:
204:
491:
49:
154:
514:
674:
36:
505:"All I want is a good sandwich. You see this sandwich here? This tuna sandwich? That's all I want--a good sandwich."
153:
Finally, the one reliable source - that Tuna Fish
Sandwiches have appeared on the food network - is fallacious, as
494:
673:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
481:. Did you know that there are 85 Google News hits with "tuna sandwich" in the title? You do now. Some examples:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
369:
337:
647:
605:
510:
100:
588:
446:
601:
377:
324:
57:
273:
Could we add them to the article so that it actually asserts notability? At the moment, it doesn't.
646:(although admittedly some cites are trivial). There is plenty enough at least for a good article.
469:
460:
421:
316:
92:
67:
617:: Those sources mentioning being killed by a tuna sandwich - it wasn't the sandwich, it was the
655:
584:
442:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
396:
549:
536:
373:
350:
320:
293:
264:
211:
53:
639:
312:
643:
465:
417:
155:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/kicked-up-tuna-melt-recipe/index.html
412:
399:. I mean - "Tuna sandwiches in the media"? However on examining the first reference
341:
177:
507:
651:
638:- this article "denotes" what a tuna fish sandwich means and what it is about (see
395:
Interesting one! At first when I read the article I thought it was a rather clever
130:
187:
says it has been "the staple of the snatched office lunch for a generation." The
532:
527:
346:
289:
260:
207:
482:
500:
368:: If you're going to rag on me, at least get your insults correct. It's not
496:, and another was used by a woman in an attempt to murder her husband.
490:. And be careful. A Chinese tuna sandwich killed a Korean diplomat
667:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
83:
Articles for deletion/Tuna fish sandwich (2nd nomination)
600:
per FeydHuxtable. Obviously notable, plenty of sources.
137:
126:
122:
118:
499:Who knew a simple sandwich could be so deadly? And
436:
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions
526:A visit to the public library produced noted chef
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
677:). No further edits should be made to this page.
621:. Mixing it with bread did not make it worse...
579:Massively noteable subject - per sources from
8:
411:, as well as The Spokesman review satisfies
430:
493:, another killed a man in a nursing home
434:: This debate has been included in the
78:Articles for deletion/Tuna fish sandwich
650:has found some excellent news sourses.
75:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
74:
24:
623:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
275:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
244:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
229:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
160:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
227:the sandwich, not tuna itself.
319:to make a tuna fish sandwich.
1:
694:
660:21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
631:21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
610:19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
593:12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
572:08:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
541:00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
519:23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
474:18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
451:17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
426:16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
401:Spokesman review/NY Times
382:18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
355:14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
329:12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
298:00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
283:00:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
269:00:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
252:00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
237:00:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
216:00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
168:23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
62:00:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
670:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
648:User:Fences and windows
73:AfDs for this article:
340:argument ignores our
461:Category:Sandwiches
158:assert notability.
581:Fences and windows
511:Fences and windows
93:Tuna fish sandwich
68:Tuna fish sandwich
44:The result was
453:
439:
50:non-admin closure
685:
672:
568:
565:
562:
559:
556:
553:
440:
409:The Star article
140:
134:
116:
34:
693:
692:
688:
687:
686:
684:
683:
682:
681:
675:deletion review
668:
566:
563:
560:
557:
554:
551:
405:tuna sandwiches
136:
107:
91:
88:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
691:
689:
680:
679:
663:
662:
633:
612:
595:
574:
543:
521:
476:
454:
428:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
370:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
358:
357:
338:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
331:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
256:
255:
254:
219:
218:
189:New York Times
185:The Daily Mail
147:
146:
87:
86:
85:
80:
72:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
690:
678:
676:
671:
665:
664:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
613:
611:
607:
603:
602:Granite thump
599:
596:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
575:
573:
570:
569:
547:
544:
542:
538:
534:
529:
525:
522:
520:
516:
512:
508:
506:
502:
498:
495:
492:
489:
487:
485:
483:
480:
477:
475:
471:
467:
462:
458:
455:
452:
448:
444:
437:
433:
429:
427:
423:
419:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
343:
339:
335:
332:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
306:
299:
295:
291:
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
156:
151:
144:
139:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
79:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
669:
666:
644:well sourced
635:
618:
614:
597:
585:FeydHuxtable
580:
576:
550:
545:
523:
504:
478:
464:sandwiches.
456:
443:TexasAndroid
431:
404:
392:
365:
333:
308:
224:
173:
152:
148:
45:
43:
31:
28:
636:Speedy keep
598:Speedy Keep
577:Speedy Keep
528:James Beard
509:Beautiful.
503:was a fan:
374:Niteshift36
321:Niteshift36
54:Ron Ritzman
642:), and is
501:John Gotti
342:notability
178:notability
176:Satisfies
466:Lame Name
418:Paulbrock
317:WP:NOTHOW
143:View log
652:Bearian
615:Comment
524:Comment
397:WP:HOAX
366:Comment
334:Comment
110:protect
105:history
640:WP:NAD
533:Edison
347:Edison
313:WP:NAD
309:Delete
290:Edison
261:Edison
208:Edison
138:delete
114:delete
567:Focus
336:Your
315:also
141:) – (
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
656:talk
627:talk
619:tuna
606:talk
589:talk
546:Keep
537:talk
515:talk
479:Keep
470:talk
459:The
457:Keep
447:talk
432:Note
422:talk
413:WP:N
393:Keep
378:talk
351:talk
325:talk
294:talk
288:AFD.
279:talk
265:talk
248:talk
233:talk
225:only
212:talk
174:Keep
164:talk
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
58:talk
46:keep
441:--
48:. (
658:)
629:)
608:)
591:)
539:)
517:)
472:)
449:)
438:.
424:)
380:)
353:)
327:)
296:)
281:)
267:)
250:)
235:)
214:)
206:.
203:,
200:,
197:,
194:,
183:.
166:)
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
60:)
52:)
654:(
625:(
604:(
587:(
564:m
561:a
558:e
555:r
552:D
535:(
513:(
468:(
445:(
420:(
376:(
349:(
323:(
292:(
277:(
263:(
246:(
231:(
210:(
162:(
145:)
135:(
133:)
95:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.