Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunagate

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. Sandstein 10:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tunagate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. To quote the article: "Despite intense national coverage for many weeks, in the end, the story ended up being mostly forgotten." Does this news story have enduring notability? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article title is unhelpful. It refers to a 1985 incident but this 2007 incident, (a raise in minimum wage not being applied to American Samoa, to the benefit of StarKist Tuna), which also involved StarKist Tuna, has also been labelled "TunaGate", and appears to be more notable. Also, without looking at the sources in detail (not enough time) I'd comment that a story of national interest and several weeks of coverage, with political implications, would typically be notable as per WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apologies for not being able to link directly to some sources, as the news results are behind pay walls. However, it seems pretty clear that the incident did receive lasting coverage, (for instance these news reports for 1992-93). In addition, there is non-trivial coverage in books [1], [2]. The other "tunagate" may be worth an article, and we'd have to consider disambiguation, but it's not up to AfD to decide on that. Quantpole (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google news archive search for Tunagate shows that by far the most common use of the term was in relation to the 1985 scandal, not anything more recent. It's disheartening to see WP:NOTNEWS being cited in such an incorrect way. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some research should really be done before nominating an article for deletion. A quick ProQuest search finds over 1,500 news articles on the story from the period. - SimonP (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully sufficient coverage in major news sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep look further into whether there was ever any tainted tuna or was this a bet between two public people over a cigar... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2010 (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.