Talk:Corned beef sandwich

Untitled

This page should not be redirected to Corned Beef without going through the correct procedures first. However, I believe that it warrants its own page. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe it warrants its own page? The two lines could easily be added to the main article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Other forms of sandwiches have their own Wikipedia page, so why not this one? Please just leave it alone. It isn't harming anyone. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"It isn't harming anyone" is no reason to keep an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What an absolutely idiotic decision to put up that stupid notice. OK, so are we to remove every other sandwich page on Wikipedia? Of course not. So lets stop being silly, remove that notice and just get on with the rest of our lives. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to know why this article is being considered for deletion whereas Egg sandwich is not. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Since no answer could be offered to the above, I have taken the decision to remove the highly unnecessary and unwanted banner. This hopefully should close the matter. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason to keep this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. I mean if this article is to be deleted, then Egg sandwich should be deleted also. It is entirely the same argument so please don't say it isn't because it clearly is. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the guidelines for articles. If you want then try and AfD Egg sandwich, but even if Egg sandwich was deleted it would not mean this article should be deleted, if Egg sandwich was kept it would not mean this article should be kept. Each article has to assert its own notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not be so petty as to try to have Egg sandwich removed. I understand its merrits very well as I do with this article. I was merely using Egg sandwich as an example. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You weren't "using it as an example", you were using it's existence as a reason to keep this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, whatever - just remove this article if it makes you feel better. Jeez, lifes too short! --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The astronaut anecdote

Hi. I explained my deletion in corned beef sandwich. It's a digression, as discussed in WP:COATRACK, from the topic of the article that sheds no light on the topic. As such, it warrants deletion. You restored the text without explanation. I'd like to remove it again but I wondered what your rationale was for restoring it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1) It isn't a coatrack; 2) we had engaged in lenghty debate about it a few months ago, and the result was it was kept, 3) It is the famous moment for that particular dish, and therefore deserved to be mentioned there. Therefore, it stays.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1) It is a coatrack by the very definition of coatrack. Can you tell one thing that one can learn about corned beef sandwiches from reading that story? 2) The discussion was about deleting the article. 3) It wasn't a famous moment about corned beef sandwiches. It was a possibly famous story that happened to involve a corned beef sandwich. There was nothing about the fact that it was a corned beef sandwich, as opposed to a tuna sandwich or a corned beef empanada or a chocolate eclair, that made any difference in the way the story played out. The bottom line is that three quarters of an article that purports to be about corned beef sandwiches is actually about astronauts misbehaving on a space flight. Doesn't that seem odd? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What needs to happen is adding to the article. It didn't get done before during its AFD, but now should get done. Tomorrow I'll fill it out so that less than 50% of the article is about Gus.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned how it's the better part of the article to emphasize my point, but it will still be a coatrack, especially given the amount of detail that was put into explaining the incident. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I saw this discussion on third opinion.

Here are the facts as I see them:

• the possibility of coatrack wasn't discussed in the deletion review
• the anecdote about the astronauts has little to do with the food; it's about an incident on a spaceflight and the aftermath, it could have been a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the anecdote changing in any significant way.
• it tells you practically nothing about this kind of sandwich itself
• the incident is covered well elsewhere
• Most of the article is devoted to this incident
• It very probably was a famous incident for this dish
• I find the incident obscures the subject
• I do not believe the article is very notable without the sandwich incident

Based on this I declare that this constitutes WP:COATRACK, and in accordance with the guideline the anecdote needs to be trimmed-I would suggest that the incident be merged to gemini 3 and linked (probably as a see also) from this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It turned out that the Gemini 3 article already related the story, so I amplifed that with one reference and removed the story from here while referencing the Gemini 3 article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)