Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tunday

message: This is a superb idea! Hoorah to the person championing this cause. New ideas are always most welcome and indeed if we do not rally to this idea it will in no time at all be adopted by some US person and Lancashire will have lost out. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinius (talk • contribs) 
The following comments were refactored from the main AFD page to aid readability. Please place long comments here. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment This is a repeated mistake that many people make. Wikipedia is not a place to spread new ideas or make something well-known. Wikipedia is to document things which are already notable, and this fails miserably. When was this "tradition" invented? Fan1967 15:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Google gets 793 his only, so it may not be notable.--Jusjih 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment The google hits seem to be primarily people's names. I can't find any that fit this definition. Fan1967 15:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "What underlines a fact?" you ask (by which I take you to mean "what makes something a 'fact'?". The Wikipedia policy here on what makes something a verifiable-enough fact to merit inclusion is very clear:
; 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
; 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
; 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Can you cite sources that this "tradition" exists that meet the above criteria?  The self-referential argument that "It's a fact because it's on Wikipedia so it must be enough of a fact to be allowed on Wikipedia" is, as I'm sure you're aware, nonsense. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment Am I wrong, or did you just try to argue that this should be kept because there's an article about it in Wikipedia????? Fan1967 17:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment Actually, the fact that it's "unheard of" is exactly why it should be deleted. Wikipedia policies are quite clear on this. Wikipedia documents things that are already notable. It does not help publicize things which aren't. Fan1967 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment So you don't want to publicize it, you just want to let people hear about it. Word games. It's the same thing. Fan1967 17:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: comment Frankly, it is completely irrelevant what your aims are or aren't in reference to publicizing this subject matter. What is relevant is that the subject isn't notable. It doesn't matter that a blatantly non notable subject isn't technically hurting anyone. What matters is that it doesn't belong here. IrishGuy 18:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So do something about these "loads of ridiculous articles". Be bold. Nominate them for deletion, if you feel they meet the criteria (that's Wikipedia's critieria, which have been citen often enough, not your personal POV). Improve them, if you think you can. Your edit record hardly makes one think that you have a sincere belief in improving Wikipedia rather than simply defending this article come what may. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: comment two users is pretty far from a numer of people. This article is non-notable. Passion is irrelevant. Find notability otherwise it will be deleted. IrishGuy 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability and verifiability. Notability is a guideline (though I agree 100% with you). Verifiability is a policy, as is original research. Neither of which have been proven (or disproven, as appropriate).  Much more of this and I'll start wonerding why this expletive deleted thing wasn't up for speedy as hoax vandalism in the first place. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As Tonywalton noted above, you must be able to provide verification that a notable amount of people celebrate it. Just saying that people celebrate it isn't enough. That could mean five people celebrate it.IrishGuy 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (more than 5 maybe add two zeros and a big plus in just one section of lancashire). That's getting close to notability. Now tell me where I can, independently of your assertion, find this information. As for the "more important things and real hoaxes to delete" that's undeniable. Please be so kind as to point out where in your edit record there is any evidence of concern about this. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 'i know about 25-35ish people who probably know others and so on. Name the ones that are reputable sources. For example, provide a reference in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, or perhaps BBC Radio Lancashire. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment How can something "in its infancy" be a "tradition"? Let's face it, this was made up Thursday 4/5/06 at 1:23. That's two days ago. Something that's a tradition would need to happen at least more than once. Fan1967 21:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: comment Please don't make rude assumptions about other editors. You have no way of knowing whether or not Metropolitan90 read through the entire discussion. His comments don't illustrate any lack of knowledge about the discussion. The fact that you yourself even admit that this subject is in its infancy and is unlikely to be sourced anywhere else only further proves how extremely non notable this thing is. Notability and verifiability are hallmarks for having articles on Wikipedia. This article has neither. IrishGuy 21:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment  That's where you're misguided.  "[A]fter all we are in debate."  We are not in debate.  We are each stating our own feelings on this article and whether it meets the notability standards of Wikipedia.  It is the prevailing belief around here that it does not.  YOU are creating debate by feeling the need to reply to every single comment.  Your points are known, we understand what you feel.  Now, please let each contributor state his or her own opinion without feeling like they'll be forced into confrontation with you.  Thank you.  Metros232 21:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you understand. Your point has already been made about seventeen times. It is very clear where you stand on this. Shouting, repeating yourself, stamping your foot, etc...none of these actions will make any difference. AfDs aren't decided based on passionate feelings but are based on Wikipedia standards. IrishGuy 22:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You two (two? possible one) seems to misunderstand the original comment. It was in regards to using Wikipedia to gain notice for a non notable idea. It wasn't in reference to being tasteless. While you may find the sexual articles tasteless (everyone is entitled to an opinion) those articles refer to a larger lexicon that is both notable and verifiable...something this article isn't. Now, having gone on record numerous times, will you please stop trying to influence the discussion by bullying each person who comments? IrishGuy 23:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bhavesh-Patel is a new account who has only edited at this AfD and the talk page for this article. Possible sockpuppet. IrishGuy 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The comment above by 172.143.100.65 is the only edit by this user. Possible sockpuppet. IrishGuy 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: if you want people to be able to find out factual information about Tunsday, why don't you form a website for it?  Surely with all the supporters it has, you'll be able to have everyone chip in a few bucks to pay for hosting fees, and surely one or more of the supports must have some web experience, right?  I mean, law of averages says that if you've got a massive amount of people, surely one of them can have web design skills.  Metros232 16:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: comment may I draw your attention to your own edit history here. Exactly two sentences in April and since then only comments on this AfD and the talk page of this article. Wikipedia isn't empowered by people who only comment in one AfD. IrishGuy 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: comment the only person taking this AfD personally is you. Frankly, because you are the only person who cares at all about this obviously non notable subject. It is common in AfDs to point out when a user has only made one edit. It isn't harassment. This is how AfDs work. And yes, frankly, it is quite clear that there is sockpuppetry going on here. Between this page and the talk page there have been five or six new users who have made exactly one edit...and that is to either this AfD or the talk page. How would a new user know to come here? IrishGuy 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)