I was pondering this matter, and was inspired by what dbwiz wrote.
I believe there really is something suboptimal here which needs to be corrected. The problem stems from the fact that "being a tutorial"* means two completely different things:

1. being a node of type perltutorial
2. being linked in the Tutorials list (aka "section")

As it stands, there is no mechanism to enforce that these two conditions are synchronized (unlike the other sections, where such a mechanism does exist). Instead, the Pedagogues have been endued with the power to manage the Tutorials list manually, adding and removing links to nodes as they see fit. They can un-link perltutorial nodes they deem of insufficient quality; and they can link in the Tutorials list to nodes of any other type (mostly just perlmeditation) which are considered to be worthy.

"Big deal," you say?

The problem stems from the fact that the site's searching capability only looks at node type, not at where the node is linked. This means using Super Search to search through "Tutorials" will in fact only be looking at nodes of type perltutorial — including all the crappy ones — and possibly not finding nodes which are clearly listed in Tutorials!

How to resolve this problem?

As long as the contents of the Tutorials section (that is, the nodes which are linked there) are under manual control of people, there is no perfect solution. But one large step in the right direction, in terms of enabling those people to manually fix problems where they find them, would be to empower the Pedagogues to convert a perltutorial node into a perlmeditation node, and vice versa, at will. (Note that, more or less analogously, QandAEditors currently have the power to summarily demote a Categorized Question into a SoPW question (but not vice versa).)

This may be too much to ask. As an essentially equivalent alternative, the Pedagogues could submit requests for such conversions to the Janitors (perhaps by using Editor Requests). This circumvents the consideration process, which, based on the threads raised by dbwiz, was mostly ineffective, and I don't think it should be up to the voting public to decide anyway. The only other opinion which should be considered, imho, is the author's: obviously, if an author doesn't want her writeup converted to perltutorial, we should respect that, but it should come with the consequence that her overlooked gem won't get listed in Tutorials either. Similarly, if someone posts a crappy tutorial, we should be able to summarily demote it to a meditation.

* An analogous situation applies in most of the other sections as well.

Later addition:

Another possible approach to solving this problem would be to change how Super Search searches Tutorials. Rather than considering "tutorials" to be nodes of type perltutorial, it could look at some other metadata of the node; for example, we could perhaps set the parent field of "tutorial" nodes to point to some "sentinel" node (the Tutorials list itself, say), and then have Super Search consider any node which has that field value to be a "tutorial" for the purposes of searching. Another, similar possibility which occurs to me would be to use the keywords field – set a certain keyword (Tutorial, maybe ;-) on each node which is to be treated as a "tutorial".

However, I do not favor this approach, as it just makes the Tutorials section that much more different from the other sections. I believe very firmly that the best situation is for Tutorials to meet the definition of a PerlMonks Section in this fundamental respect: that being "In Tutorials" is exactly equivalent to be a node of type perltutorial.