Deletion of Tuna fish sandwich (2nd nomination)

Comment: this article "denotes" what a tuna fish sandwich means and what it is about (see ), and is |well sourced (although admittedly some cites are trivial). There is plenty enough at least for a good article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NAD||WP:RS)

Comment: Interesting one! At first when I read the article I thought it was a rather clever .  I mean - "Tuna sandwiches in the media"?  However on examining the first reference http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=htsRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=E-8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5805,6364340&dq=tuna+sandwich 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 http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2008/11/2/sundaymetro/2407433&sec=sundaymetro The Star article, as well as The Spokesman review satisfies  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX||WP:N)

Comment: 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.  also  to make a tuna fish sandwich
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NAD||WP:NOTHOW)

Comment: Your  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:N)

Comment: 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 http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=tuna+sandwich&cf=all. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191516/Could-tuna-sandwich-soon-extinct-high-street-chains-celebrities-boycott-endangered-tuna.html The Daily Mail says it has been "the staple of the snatched office lunch for a generation." The http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=htsRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=E-8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5805,6364340&dq=tuna+sandwich 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. Seehttp://news.google.com/newspapers?id=h9QPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=640DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3280,3116392&dq=tuna+sandwich, http://books.google.com/books?id=RTT_IhMVRfkC&pg=PA281&dq=tuna+sandwich&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3#PPA281,M1, http://books.google.com/books?id=bs_qWkDJACEC&pg=PA200&dq=tuna+sandwich&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3, http://books.google.com/books?id=OD8EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA99&dq=tuna+sandwich&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1960&as_brr=3#PPA99,M1, http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2008/11/2/sundaymetro/2407433&sec=sundaymetro
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)