Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunday

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 of the debate was

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Tregoweth as patent nonsense, and WP:SNOW applies here too. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tunday

I have refactored some of the longer comments from here to the talk page to reduce the amount that people viewing the day's AFD have to scroll through. This is not an assertion that those comments are worse or less important, merely an effort to aid readability. Please place long comments on the talk page. No keep/delete recommendations have been moved. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything about this "holiday" anywhere online Metros232 11:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 12:10 UTC

No, no, it's not online at the moment because it's quite new and not many people have heard about it yet outside of Lancashire. It definately isn't a hoax. Ed22882 12:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Because it's only known in Lancashhire....Williamb 12:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per excellent reasons provided by Ed22882. Fan1967 13:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, wait a second, my reasons were to keep it not to delete it!--Ed2288 14:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

comment that may well be, but your reasons simply underlined why this subject is not notable. IrishGuy 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Your reasons ("quite new", "not many people have heard about it") made it perfectly clear why it should be deleted. Fan1967 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. We already had berstoffenday, now we have Tunday... Now what :) Fails notability and WP:NOR quite certainly. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Now what"? The now-speedied Tit monday. perhaps (which does have a respectable number of Ghits)? Tonywalton  | Talk 14:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If it is admittedly new and only known in Lancashire, then it is definitely non-notable. IrishGuy 14:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable sources are supplied. paraphrase of my edit made 16:48 6th May andr emoved in error by refactoring. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

DON NOT DELETE If you look at the discussion page for the Tunday article then u'll find that there are those who have heard of it out there... (comment refactored to talk page, posted by Guitar6strings at 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

• Delete, because this is not a "holiday" but just some inofficial idea by someone. As somene already said, Wikipedia is not the place to spread new ideas. —N-true 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete - patent nonsense by any reasonable unbroken interpretation of the words "patent" and "nonsense" - Politepunk 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: as "quite new", something that is only known in Lancashire, unverifiable, and WP:NFT. --Hetar 16:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Swift Delete As per WP:NOT--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that people are now telling blatant lies in order to get the article deleted, eg User:Athenemiranda on the Tunday discussion page. These lies undermine the whole argument for the deletion of the article.--Ed2288 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw the talk page. Athenemiranda didn't claim to speak with you personally, so how can you say it didn't happen? Beyond that, it is irrelevant because this subject remains non notable. IrishGuy 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody's calling this a hoax. It could be true for all I know. The problem is that it's non-notable. Delete per, well, just about everybody. TheProject 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 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 [1], 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 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. --Metropolitan90 20:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable and unverifiable. Simple as that. Grandmasterka 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, a flagrant and frankly embarassing misuse of Wikipedia. My Tunday wish is for this article to disappear, never to return. --Nydas 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, when it becomes widely observed, it can have the articel but not yet. --Tone 22:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. First notability, then Wikipedia article, please. -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 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. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Voice of Treason 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As ed said above, it's new and no one has heard of it. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a publicity machine. When (if?) it's ever notable, then feel free to come back and recreate the page. --Bachrach44 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete patent and unsourced nonsense. If you would spend even half as much time sourcing this article as you have belaboring a losing point on this page, maybe somebody would vote to keep the article. Aplomado - UTC 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as patent nonsense. -- Francs2000 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. 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. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, i am trying and ne1 celebrators out there PLEASES! help me cite sources for the article. But just sumthing away from the topic, im at college not in skool.--Guitar6strings 18:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE the article and then stomp on the ashes 'till dead. ForbiddenWord 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP First of all having read through this discussion I would like to say that just because I am a new user, that people should not treat me any less than themselves, it is true I have made little contribution in the form of comment or article to Wikipedia, through no fault of my own, as I find it a reliable and well managed source, and see little need therefore to add my input. However, I have come to gain information on a local tradition which has recently come to my attention, Tunday. being new to the area I am increasingly interested in local myths and traditions, I have recently heard about Tunday from some of the local people and colleagues who have lived in the area for a long time. with the most recent Tunday just passed I decided to further my knowledge into this tradition, as I found it an interesting event. I trawled the internet fruitlessly, as it seems some of you also have, with little reference to Tunday on the internet I was beginning to lose hope in finding this illustrious tradition. I discovered this article and was shocked to find that people considered Tunday a ‘Hoax’ this fuelled an ambition to find the true roots of Tunday. I remembered the true roots of knowledge before the internet, having took the time to go to the library I found a book entitled 'Lesser known traditions of England and Wales' by Anthony Langdon, in which there was a clear article on Tunday, although small and seeming relatively insignificant compared to other lesser known traditions the article relates to a tradition which reaches back centuries, “Tunday has been an Celtic tradition since circa 230AD, the tradition was a ritual preformed by believers of pre-roman druidism, the ritual was preformed on the hour of the calendar day of the subsequent number of the month of the subsequent number” it goes on to say that “The tradition no longer includes a human sacrifice, but the custom of praying to the Celtic gods for desires has remained.” This appears to have evolved into the current practice of wishing. It appears that the tradition has been passed on through a relatively small area of Celtic ancestry to lead to today's current Lancastrian tradition along with several small Welsh communities who also practice this tradition. The old rituals of sacrifice were replaced over time, when Druidism as a religion was practically destroyed in circa 60BC by the Romans, by those less loyal to the tradition by simple good will gestures, to be in accordance with Roman rule. It would appear according to 'Lesser known traditions of England and Wales' that the tradition of Tunday has evolved to have meaning on our current calendar and as more units of time have become available as has the accuracy of the Tunday tradition. Unfortunately this source gives no information upon the origin of the partial and full Tunday, but I assume as time began to be measured in the 12 hour clock that followers of the tradition adopted the slightly easier option of celebrating Tunday, and taking a quiet moment to reflect and wish on, for instance, the 14th hour rather than the 2nd hour. Also unfortunately the book does not give any disclosure into where the current name of Tunday derives. Of course having discovered this information I was appalled to think that people were comparing such an ancient and inherent tradition to that of Crop Circles or Bigfoot, (admittedly through no fault of their own) classing it a ‘Hoax’. I hope you see the errors of your ways in wishing to delete a (until now) somewhat forgotten gem of British history, from a site dedicated to empowering knowledge to the people. To say that it is suitable for deletion because it is relatively unknown is blatant bigotry against lesser known knowledge and is a misuse of this website. I will certainly be celebrating Tunday and spreading the word of such a prestigious celebration. Upon saying this I would agree that the member who wrote this article needs to review it with relevant sourced information.

--Dontrileme 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I, too, am shocked. Shocked that so many people with brand spanking new accounts keep finding this AfD just to post long screeds about how important it is. IrishGuy 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Note that Anthony Langdon's book Lesser Known Traditions of England and Wales is not listed in the online catalogs of the British Library, the Oxford University Libraries, or the Library of Congress, nor is it on sale at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com. --Metropolitan90 02:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment nor is any relevant-looking Anthony or Antony Langdon, nor the title of the alleged book (as both "Lesser known…" and "Lesser-known…") found by a search by the dogpile.com metasearch engine. It seems there's a problem of verifiability. Again. I wonder if Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism can throw any light on this alleged Druidic ceremony (which sounds deeply suspect, whatever "the ritual was preformed on the hour of the calendar day of the subsequent number of the month of the subsequent number” is supposed to mean). Tonywalton  | Talk 10:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I have found evidence of the roots of Tunday in Eric Rondel's "Chroniques Paysannes Legendes, Traditions et Superstitions". Hopefully we can now get this deletion debate behind us and start to add to and improve the Tunday article.--194.154.22.36 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, and for the dishonest "citations" offered in support.

• The first book cited (Lesser Known Traditions of England and Wales) does not exist.
• The second book cited (Chroniques Paysannes Legendes, Traditions et Superstitions)) does not mention Tunday.
• There is a grave difficulty with any claims of "druid rituals" dating to 230 AD, as the Druids in England and Brittany had been destroyed by the Romans over two centuries before this date.
• Wikipedia is not intended for cute little games made up in school one afternoon. See WP:NFT.

Justin Eiler 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• firstly in reply to the rather aggressive 'IrishGuy' I have been a legitimate user of Wikipedia for a long time now, although as I explained, I have had no need to comment or add an article of my own until now, having had recent interest in the subject I have joined this farce of a debate in order to protect a tradition and custom 'under attack' by a combination of ignorance and benightedness. I resent that I have to defend my identity as well as defending this tradition, as for so called ‘sock puppetry’ you yourself say along with ‘tonywalton’ admit that you have never seen this happen before in favour or against any AfD. In reply to the accusations that this book does not exist, it seems to be a reprint of a compilation of older books based upon English traditions. It seems that some of this book has been translated from original Gaelic texts. I very much doubt any of these books or manuscripts are listed on any incomplete online library catalogues such as that of the British library which goes back barely further than the 15th century. In reply to your link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism this was not a Neopagan tradition, no doubt it will have evolved into a form of Neopagan tradition, but Celtic beliefs and religion precede that of Neopaganism, so therefore your link is totally irrelevant, I’m afraid. And as for “whatever "the ritual was preformed on the hour of the calendar day of the subsequent number of the month of the subsequent number” is supposed to mean” this quite obviously means that a ritual was preformed on the hour of the day (for instance on the third hour) of the day of the month which followed the number of the hour (for instance the fourth day) of the month which followed the number of the day (for instance the fifth month). Having said this in response I do see your point that the source provided seems somewhat invalid. Therefore I am willing to spend some of my time researching this subject further in order for the truth to be known. When I have collected more information I shall return to post my findings.--Dontrileme 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You claim firstly in reply to the rather aggressive 'IrishGuy' I have been a legitimate user of Wikipedia for a long time now... and yet your user history shows quite the opposite. Second, you claim as for so called ‘sock puppetry’ you yourself say along with ‘tonywalton’ admit that you have never seen this happen before in favour or against any AfD....' Wrong. We both stated quite clearly that neither of us has seen it be effective. It happens all the time in AfDs...it just rarely works. Because like this case, it is plainly obvious that Dontrileme is the same user as Guitar6strings. You both write the same. You both insist on calling this a debate even though it has been pointed out it isn't. You both write excessively long screeds and point the finger at me about this being deleted. I'm not the one who nominated this for deletion. I'm just the one who keeps catching your sockpuppets. IrishGuy 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

as for so called ‘sock puppetry’ you yourself [Irishguy] say along with ‘tonywalton’ admit that you have never seen this happen before in favour or against any AfD. Actually no, I said nothing like that. I said though I supposed it had been known I personally had never seen sockpuppetry in favour of deletion, and I'd never seen sockpuppetry against deletion to be effective (quite the reverse; it tends to sway consensus in favour of deletion). And it very likely won't work here either. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dontrileme: that, I'm afraid, is a lie. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment excuse me i stand corrected, but what are we dedebating here? my ability to quote your comments or the imminant deletion of a peice of British history? --Dontrileme 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Stifle, the word 'that' dosn't quite point out what you find to be untrue, please, be more specific so that i may dispel your doubts.--Dontrileme 15:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I assert that as you registered on Monday, your assertion that "I have been a legitimate user of Wikipedia for a long time now" is inaccurate. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)comm

Comment I would like to thank Justin Eiler for bringing the matter of 230AD to my attention, it is true that druids did not exist at that time, as I clearly stated "Druidism as a religion was practically destroyed in circa 60BC by the Romans" unfortunately I made a typing error, I should have typed 230BC but accidentally typed 230AD instead, I’m sure you can appreciate that I have made a typing error and even went on to seem to disprove myself with the previous quote. (I do not see why I would do that if I was lying and not just making a simple mistake.) As for accusations of the book 'Lesser Known Traditions of England and Wales' not existing, well I can only say that I have read it, it does exist and it isn't my problem if you cannot find the book.--Dontrileme 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Typographical errors are certainly understandable, and I don't hold that against anyone. However, as to "it isn't my problem if you cannot find the book," this is the very crux of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If the book cannot be found, that changes this AfD from a Delete discussion to a Speedy Delete discussion. Justin Eiler 16:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We must have different versions of "Chroniques Paysannes Legendes, Traditions et Superstitions". In my version, it appears to me (my french is not flawless) Tunday is on page 45. Is there something different in your version?

• Delete: 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 WP:V 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. 146.164.26.85 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept the fact that people find it hard to accept the proposed sources by my fellow Tunday believers but whether you can find those books/sources or not does not make this article a hoax; it only further emphasises your point as an article that cannot not yet at this point be verifeid sufficeintly to your strict demands. I believe notability is somewhat "proven" or moving towards it wheather you may agree with me or not but ture, the real debate between people here is on the verifiablity. However i must strongly stress that despite this topic of discussion in my motion to keep the article; it is most deffinately not a hoax.--Guitar6strings 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, notability has in no way been proven. All that has been shown are sources given that may or may not exist. How does that illustrate notability? IrishGuy 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely and unreservedly accept your assertion that it's not a hoax. However, the standard at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. To quote from the relevant policy, "This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."

If and when Tunday reaches the level of public acclaim and awareness to be published in reliable, published sources, feel free to come back and recreate the article. In the meantime, it fails the standards of verifiability, and thus does not belong at Wikipedia. Justin Eiler 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

comment "However, the standard at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" What, so your saying that Wikipedia would allow an untrue article if it was verifiable? That's absurd.--194.154.22.35 12:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment An untrue article wouldn't be verifiable. If it can be verified, it's true. However, many things are true but cannot be verified. Fan1967 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just to make things a little more complicated, my friend Shan used to call 1.23 AM "the magic minute - make a wish!" (although she never used the term "Tunday" ever). DS 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment- Close Seems to have been speedied (twice) under G1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.