Deletion of Tunday

Comment: As per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as |unverifiable. "Tunday", which is a tradition celebrated in Lancashire according to some of the commenters here, turns up only 4 Google hits when combined with Lancashire http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tunday+lancashire, none of which support the definition of Tunday shown in this article (and two of which are apparently misprints of "Sunday" from mis-scanned newspapers). In other words, we have no online sources for Tunday at all, much less reliable ones. By contrast, I never heard of mohinga before, yet I can find numerous Google hits for it, substantially all of which describe it as a kind of food from Burma. (See http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/08/il/FP602080311.html here for an example from the Honolulu Advertiser, a |reliable source.) I ''think'' Tunday is a hoax, but I ''know'' it's unverifiable, and by policy it should therefore be deleted even if it's real
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: This whole discussion is idiotic and beside the point. This AfD is not an attack on a different religion or cult or tradition or whatever. The existence of the wikipedia article is what's in discussion here. You (the article author and all the "Tundayists" around here) say that Tunday exists, is notable in the Lancashire area and that there's a book that mentions it. Fine. Give us a way to verify it and we will promptly change our votes to Keep. Please read  for a extended explanation on verifiability. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources has more info on what is "Reliable Source". Whining and personal attacks wont change the outcome of this AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: obvious hoax/|TMUISOD, unless proven otherwise. Further weighted by mean, mean sock/meatpuppetry play that can't conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. I recommend the puppets to stop arguing and producing some media mentions, research, or other reliable stuff that would prove that people actually ''do'' celebrate this somewhere, because the article doesn't explain that at all. The above, for example, doesn't count, unless you provide citations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: per . To Guitar Strings, before you respond to this: no amount of arguing will save the article unless you (or someone else) can |cite |reliable sources for the day, and prove that it isn't something |made up in school one day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:NFT)

Comment: We already had berstoffenday, now we have Tunday... Now what :) Fails notability and  quite certainly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)