Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ham and cheese sandwich

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub  "?/!"  14:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ham and cheese sandwich
Just read it
 * You know, I would not have thought that an article on a ham and cheese sandwich could have been encyclopedic, but this is actually pretty darn good. It's not a recipe, it's a full description, and it relates it to other types of food.  Call me crazy, but for now I say keep.  Nandesuka 11:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on Monte Cristo sandwich and Croque monsieur (both properly linked from this one), so what's wrong with this article? --Russ Blau (talk) 11:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a good article. More there than a recipe. Get it to WP:FAC! Keep. Proto t c 12:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * keep This article is a good description of a ham and cheese sandwich. Something has to distinguish wikipedia from standard boring encyclopedias and to me this is it. It's also worth noting that while the big events of the day are recorded everywhere, the minutiae of everyday life aren't, and it's the minutiae of everyday life that can prove the most interesting to people in the future.
 * Keep - I look forward to a history section, anyone feel like doing some research on the background of the HCS? Usrnme h8er 12:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Never realized the humble ham and cheese had such a storied history. Live and learn, eh? I suppose we could cross-reference with the Earl of Sandwich...or see which historical figures were partial to, say, peanut butter....The_Iconoclast 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep DV8 2XL 12:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * keep per Nandesuka. --Apyule 13:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep CalJW 13:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if such an enormous staple of a huge portion of the world's childhood isn't notable then we should also delete oxygen HoratioVitero 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wow, look at all the stuff in Category:Sandwiches! This is why I love Wikipedia! the wub  "?/!"  15:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. maybe somebody can research monte cristo, which i think also has powdered sugar and dipping syrup. SaltyPig 15:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * keep all sandwichcruft Roodog2k 16:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; bread and butter article. &mdash; RJH 17:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please this doesnot make any sense either Yuckfoo 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a perfectly reasonable article, and, with some history, pictures, and references, could eventually be expanded to a FAC. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly reasonable article. Not just a recipe. Culturally significant food in the United States. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone, but esp. Nandesuka. --Blackcap | talk 21:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because it's a sandwich, that doesn't make it any less notable than the various other foods out there.  It's a very common food -- a staple, even.  Fight anti-sandwich bias (wichism?) on Wikipedia! :)  Beginning 21:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I'm going to go make User:A Man In Black/Sandwichwatch right now to combat this destructive trend! - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has FAC potential. Cmadler 15:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cheesus Christ Keep. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, it was the Virgin Mary and it was a toasted cheese sandwich. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And cut. That was really good Mr. Trump.  Except this time instead of Dominio's, maybe say Domino's, you know, like the game.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I visited this with a view to scheduling it for delete, and have to say it is a very good article indeed. Sjc 07:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article ought to be nominated as one of wikipedia's best as well as be scheduled as a feature article in the future.--Nicodemus75 11:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, if this had an image or two and was expanded a bit more, I would have to agree. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't joking. --Nicodemus75 21:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just read it. Factitious 12:26, September 5, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.