Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tunday

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)

• "Only being known in Lancashire" isn't a valid reason for deletion, IMO (and I was brought up in Yorkshire, so have no axe to grind). However I suspect that this one's "only known by about three people in Lancashire, such as the author and a couple of his mates". Can you supply verifiable sources that prove that this is in any way notable, Ed2288, and not something made up in the pub? If not, delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually "Only being known in Lancashire" is a valid reason for deletion. However, "As the whole country undoubtedly knows, this is a notable holiday in Lancashire" isn't. People frequently mix these up. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We redicule those who did not at first believe in other religions, beliefs and traditions (e.g. The early roman views towards Christianity) but how can we redicule them when people are examplifing their behaviour right here by deeming Tunday contemptible just because its not unheard by the rest the world; that is exactly the reason why it has been posted up on wikipedia, to let people know! After all, isnt wikipedia meant to be a source of knowledge and information? Nobody is being harmed; we only mean to let others know of our tradition that we take pride in and ofcourse if people wanted to they could make websites about it is a tradition that is celebrated, not comercially advertised. However the writer of the article wants to share the tradition with no porfit to his own advantage!! Please do not silence our voice because of any prejudice you may hold form past experiences, rome was not built it a day, please do not kill of the voice of the practitioners of Tunday while it is in its infancy! We only mean to share and grow! People deserve the right to know what happens around the world and we have the right to speak in pride of our tradition

I will also post my discussion from the Tunday article after this Sincere thanks!--Guitar6strings 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC) This is a growing tradition in the town of blackburn and other places (e.g. Burnley in minority so far) in lancashire and has a very high potential to catch on nationally in a couple of years time or maybe more. Its is a tradition with a sincere meaning behind it and all traditions must have had a starting point. Nothing happened spontanously and all traditions started life as a single vivid idea or vision in the minds of like-minded wo/men. Wikipedea is an excellent source of information as is it very popular and highly informative, hence I believe this is an excellent way of letting people all over the world know what their fellow human beings are doing in the other parts of this planet and this allows them to witness the birth, growth and development of an actual, meaningful and sound tradition. We all live in a world of science which questions the beliefs of superstition and ancient traditions. The Tunday tradition should not be excluded from the list of accepted tradtions only due to the fact that it is in its infancy and is mainly unheard of, well that is why i believe wikipedia is the perfect medium through which our voice can be heard by our brothers and sisters around the world, what ever colour, race or religion they may be. All traditions had to have started somewhere, Rome was not built in a day either, please do not mute our biggest source of voice (the internet) where those of us who believe still retain the hope of reaching out to the world and rejoicing in our celebration by inviting those interested to celebrate with us. No one is being hurt, insulted or rediculed here; we only mean to share and let people know, not waste your time.--Guitar6strings 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comment: Google gets 793 his only, so it may not be notable.--Jusjih 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

It is not a "new idea" being spread like leaflets! Im sorry, im sure you didnt mean to intentionally but i took that as an offence. And where does it state that Tunday is a "holiday?" We wish people joy with hearfelt greetings during the celebrations and we wish hoping it was made in the exact time of the Tunday. We have not taken advantage of it and turned it into a holiday just for the fun of it! It is foundation of believe is also similar to the Stoic believe of ancient rome where we well that, even though we have made a wish, we should not be self obsessed in it and it actually enforces a time of good thoughts, kind sharing and best wishes of each other. We tend to wish for the betterment of the world, a crisis on the news or for other poeple, we seldom obsess about ourselves and it is most definatley not a holiday.

As i have stressed before, either here or in the discussion page at the article itself, the word "share" i have used doesnt not mean to spread its fame and popularity but like you have said, to allow viewers to obtain facts. What underlines a fact? The quantity of officials deeming it a fact? Somthing that appears in a holy book? Something under a paid, copyrighted signature document? People who practice the Tunday tradition probably have never set up a website or felt the need to do so, so that's maybe why you may not find one, so that is why wikipedia is used as a medium through which others can actually type in and find out about "Tunday" like you have just done in google? Analyse the parallels between ur situation and others. You have just attempted to search for a website in google about Tunday, well here it is, an article abotu Tunday explaining what it is! Rome was not built in a day, wikipedia is the foundation block on letting people read about Tunday, as to when its start, that, i do not know but i ll ask around for you but like all tradition it was celebrated and the custom passed around subsequently forming into a tradition.--Guitar6strings 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"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)

• Comment: if this is really a Lancashire tradition, then the article's creator should have no difficulty in finding references to it in British newspapers, which are always very quick to report on curious traditions around the country. All I'll say is that I've seen plenty of references to the phenomenon in the press, and not one of them has called it "Tunday" or mentioned any traditions related to it. So unless someone else has better luck, this should be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 15:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely in this busy world, we should be more worried about real hoaxes and blatant vandalism which this articles certainly is not.--Ed2288 16:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

True (referring to the lancshire newspaper comment), but the thing is it is not a celebration of display, it is a personal wish and a greeting to one another, mainly around a community of friends and colleges to wish each other a festive greeting. Perhaps this i why the journalists have not picked it up easily as of yet since it is a very sort of introvert custom or maybe just no one has thought of informing the press.--Guitar6strings 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

mohinga is completely unheard of and only known in Burma but theres an article about it on wikipedia, so even though its only known in burma, my point is some people are more fortunate of having one or two websites/sources (mainly in rare and exotic cook books as it is a way of making money)and therefore can verify it. Tunday cannot be sold for profit nor does those who celebrate it wish to do so; so we are quite unfortunate that we have no published sources that we can easily obtain as of yet (we may have but when i have free time im gonna search 4 them)--Guitar6strings 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

my point was plainly so say that just because its unheard of (quoting what u sed" "something that is only known in Lancashire" you shouldnt suggest it for deletion. The article hasnt insulted you either nor has it wasted your time, it has just informed you of a tradition of wishing on the dot of the ascending time and date called Tunday.--Guitar6strings 17:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

As ive stressed before, the article is not trying to publicize Tunday, and going bak to my "mohinga" example, would you have heard of it b4 i told you about it? You've only "heard about" things that you actually know! thats what wikipedia does, its allows you to search for things and when you find it, there you;ve heard about it.--Guitar6strings 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

The same reason why anything is up on wikipedia, to allow people who come across it to search Tunday and find out what it is. Look i understand ur thinkin process, its natural to defend a come back from the the person you've commented on, but at the end of the day, im tryng to defend what ive posted from attacks of suspicion and its not really hurting or damaging you is it? so look outside the box and notice that like any other thing you can look up on this website, im trying to write about sumthing i am proud to celebrate, im not advertising it on big banners, its just there if people wants to look up what a Tunday is if they hsould hear about it, that is the essence of the article being posted up; to be a source of information not an advertisment thanx--Guitar6strings 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Its a fact, its a tradition that exist, and ive written an article to add to the archives of wikipedia thats not a hoax, what more do you want me to say to have it aknowledged? Im not against you here, im trying to work with u to make it..i dunno what word to use..."legal?" im trying my best and i dont think ill finnish it 2day because i have other things to do but if it was nonesense and didnt belong here dont you think i would have left by now?--Guitar6strings 18:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Athenemiranda claimed to have spoken to "one of the originators" implying more than one, but i am the ONLY originator and i didnt speak to him nor do i have any intensions of "playing dirty" im just being set up--Guitar6strings 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As i have just said in the Tunday discussion, why is everyone trying to get this particular article deleted, when its obvious that there is a number of people who are passionate about keeping it. There are loads of ridiculous articles out there that can be deleted and whose author doesn't care. Instead of having this big long argument why doesn't everyone go and delete those pages?--Ed2288 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There are people who celebrate it and thats enough notability for now, why are u so determinded to delete my article anyway?--Guitar6strings 19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

It CAN be verified; there are so many people (more than 5 maybe add two zeros and a big plus in just one section of lancashire) who celebrate it out there! And the reason its not up for speedy deletion or hoax vandilism is because people who've already read the article and the discussions have come to realise that despite the fact that we're in a tight spot of verifiabilty that makes you happy, the article is NOT a hoax and understand that there are more important things and real hoaxes to delete--Guitar6strings 20:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"verification that a notable amount of people celebrate it"-how shall i do this? ill try and prove it! If you lived in a place like Blackburn in lancashire, you'd know what i am talking about.--Guitar6strings 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(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)

I just told you, lancashire and i know about 25-35ish people who probably know others and so on as for the editing, i let the administrators take care of it. Im not the type of person to obsess about another's work, spending nearly 10 hours since the time the article was posted being determined to get it deleted for one's self-gratification. Maybe you think the more you delete the better your own edit profile looks? No offence intended ofcourse--Guitar6strings 20:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

'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)

how is bbc radio lancashire or the telegraph meant to pick up a non-exo-displaying celebration? Tunday is not a celebration of display as i have written before but there will be a source that proves it out there and when i find it ill link it to the article--Guitar6strings 20:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you took the trouble of reading the whole of the discussions then you would have also read the fact of its infancy and the unliklihood of it being up on other websites since the people who take part feels no need to write about it (except for me ofcourse). Why are all of you so dependant on google?--Guitar6strings 21:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

No assumptions made, thats why the words "if" and "would" were used and im sure that Metropolitan90 was sound enough as a guy to take a some what witty response from me, after all we are in debate. And the fact that something is in its infancy proves its youth in terms of time units e.g. years, not popularity in numbers or notability. The last Tunday was celebrated on .8 : .9 :1 2/3/4 and has been said (not 100%) sure to have been started up by mathematicians or somthing that were into superstition of time and the earth's rotation around its axis and orbit of the moon and around the sun that is the basis for time, date and seasons. The reason i wrote it on thursday's Tunday is because of the actualy significance of the 1st second and it got me thinking of writing an article about it. I was going to explain more about it but having written the 1st section of my article and after rereading it myself the article was put up for deletion so i had to pause and defend my article before i waste more effort ans energy into something that gets deleted due to "ignorance" pardon me if that was a strong word to use no rude assumptions intended--Guitar6strings 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Its such a shame that you all want it deleted. If these "specifications" for wikipedia are stuck to, at the rate wikipedia is growing, it won't be long before there's nothing left to write. It's my opinion that we, as a community, should embrace the lesser known things in life for the benefit of us all.--Ed2288 21:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcouse i feel the need to reply to each comment afterall, they are suggesting the deletion of my aritcle. Whether my point is heard or not, i must perservere and respond in order to stand my ground and keep my article posted but nevertheless ur point was very sound Metros232 and i hope you can understand my persistence.--Guitar6strings 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think it rather childish of you to say stamping your foot. Whining and determination are totally two different things and i think i do understand as i have already told you; i do not lack understanding what i say is out of persistence! Why is your so set on this article anyway? Because you also appear to be replying every one of my comments--Guitar6strings 22:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If posting factual information however small it may be is flagrant and embarrassing then what else can I say about wikipedia and Nydas your wish wont come true because today is not a Tunday; this mistake would not have been made if Tunday was more understood ( a further note on falgrant: You wont have our article but you allow anal cunt [1]--Guitar6strings 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"a flagrant and frankly embarassing misuse of Wikipedia"? look no further than the list of sexual slurs. Unnecessary yet not considered for deletion.Shouldn't we be trying to get rid of that not this?--Ed2288 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Havn't we already proven that the both of us are two different persons already? And if you could hear the tone of my voice, you would clearly understand that it is not of a hostile nature but of friendly wittiness much like ur remark on different people's views on sexual context.--Guitar6strings 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Tunday Is No Hoax

Granted, the generic label for the day is somewhat recent, but the tradition of Tunday itself, has existed for decades, being known throughout the British Isles, though under various guises. Living in Buckinghamshire, i have performed the ritual upon a number of occasions. Here the tradition is modified to incorporate the pouring of libations to household spirits, and the congrigation in a recognised sanctuary in the household. here we call the day, 'nephronic serrendipity'. Although our group of celebrators use this name, while other districts use others, it is being recognised that the tradition itself should join celbrators together, and so in the General Council of Celebrators this year, it was decded that all districts should use one name to express their tradition. Of course this caused some friction amongst certain suppports wehgo proclaimed the decision as an outrage, and an attack on their freedom of beliefs, but it was agreed that the Lancastrain name of Tunday should be used, as they had the highest number of supporters, and were prominant in publicising the events. The most effective regions in Lancashire were in fact Preston and Blackburn (Obviously, where else could there be support in Lancashire????) and followers in these towns catalsyed support, with their reverberations being felt throughout the country as far reaching as Buckinghamshire. I therefore feel that it would be a shame if this page was deleted, especially as the author is Lancashire based. It would be a serious sign of ignorance and narrow mindedness to delete the superstitious beliefs of many, especially when the belief itself is not offensive in any way to any other members of society. Please find it in your hearts to accept the peacefull folowwers of Tunday, Nephonic Serrnedipity or whatever they call it. May i also take this opportunity to plead all followers to put differences aside,and simply take solace in knowing that there are others who belive as you do, and we should support each other rather than argue! Thank you. (ps Syed of apprentice is an amazing person!) --Bhavesh-Patel 11:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

TUNDAY... i have just by chance found this article andi am in a state of shock and dismay to find that a group of people have in mind the deletion of this page, the written proof of what i and many others in my area have grown up celebrating. i am very disappointed to see that information on this page( which unfortunaty i only came across now at the time when people are thinking of getting rid of)is about to be abolished of this site for good!. speaking on behalf of people who live in burnley iam thoroughly shockd to see that vital information which for certain individuals may be too much to get their heads around is about to be lost forever.
i would also like to say that i dnt no wat the motifs for abolishen are but that i will n shall continue to support tunday 100% till the day i die n continue to spread the WORD --172.143.100.65 12:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC) farwa

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

I assure you for the last time that this is no hoax and there are no "puppets" being stringed here! And as i have explained before the article is not finnished as it was put up for deletion as soon as i had done the 1st draft and was reading through it so i didn't waste more time n effort in completing it but rather directed it towards defending it. Yes yes, im sure one of you is reading this now and is about to write "passion, number of supporters does not matter, etc etc you need notability and verifiablity" but please do not jump to the false conclusion of it being a hoax, as you can see and to my own (happy) suprise other people have found my article and helped me towards making it notable but there's not much I can do about verifying it on a sunday--Guitar6strings 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As Bachrach44 said above Wiki is an encyclopedia and, like i have said before, therefore people who wish to search for Tunday should be able to obtain the factual information. There is no banner advertising it and the article is in no way using wikipedia as a publicity machine since it informs the reader of Tunday, not promotes it beliefs onto others. And when has defending one's article with anticiaption and pre-emptive strikes become prejudice? People have heard of it that's why strangers are actually supporting my article; I think what you mean it, you havnt heard of it, but thanx for all your comments nonetheless.--Guitar6strings 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have thought about it but then i realised wikipedia was free and i would'nt need to depend on anyone, besides; wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thats the essence of my adding this article, to be included in an encylcopedia where people can type in and search for it, im not trying to promote it--Guitar6strings 16:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy, you seem to think that everyone in favour of the article is s "sockpuppet". May I politely draw your attention to Wikipedia's policy on newcomers: "Understand that newcomers are both needed by and are of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource."--Ed2288 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Actually, I have made numerous alterations to articles, and only became a member recently, when I wanted to start an article myself. The fact that I only joined in April, shows that I am unlikely to have made many contributions since then, as I, like you and everyone else, am a busy person. It is not a competition to see who can make the most contributions, and again I encourage everyone to not "bite the newcomers".--Ed2288 18:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey!! Ed2288 just looked at that link irishguy's included in his last comment and saw the article you started in April; are you into guitars aswell then? And irishguy havnt you heard the saying "...the woods would be silent of only the best song birds sang?" However little ed2288 has contributed is nevertheless a contribution. Everyone has to start from the beginning and Im sure you remember the time when you yourself had only made a few contribution to wikipedia. Don't you think you're getting just abit too obssessive concerning the deletion of this article? I mean 1st you're telling me the exact number of times (17 according to your calculations) i made a certain point, then its pointing out ed2288's mistake in copying and pasting his ip address and stating the actual time that comment was written the when we get 2 more supporters you quickly jump to allegations of "puppetry" with small font captions under each supporter and add something about "the only one edited" to one of them and now ed2288's exact, not 1 but 2 sentences made in April...I mean you accuse me of instigating debate by replying each of the comments made about the article but you yourself are no different from what you have accused me of. However my motif is to defend the work i have created from being deleted. Are you sure you're not taking this personally or are you trying to delete my article to add its deletion to your own records? If you want another hobby why not take up guitar lessons I am im willing to help you play the guitar and im sure ed2288 will be too! haha messing with you man, hope you don't take it to heart--Guitar6strings 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

ive gone by using wikipedia for years without feeilng the need to sign up, so would millions of other people. That is unless something they celebrated being posted up on wikipedia is underthreat of deletion so they felt the need to sign up and help me defend it. Its a weekend! How many people really stay at home infront of their computers? Most people i know usually go out friday, saturday and all sunday is their hangover day so im sure soon the people who posted before will be back on to check the article's progress.--Guitar6strings 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a sunday and im revising for exams, cut me some slack here im a busy man. With all that do you think i'd be wasting my valuble time by trying to defend for a patent article? And people have voted for the article and its only nonesense to you because u havnt heard of it before and im not going to go into all that resource stuff u can read it above, im too busy reading Aristophanes' Wasps and probing the nucleus--Guitar6strings 22:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What?? 1st it was nonesense, then it was ok it's probs true but u need to verify it then its oh oh oh its sockpuppetry and now its patent nonsense....why are people so deperate to judge this article? READ THE WHOLE OF THE DISCUSSIONS B4 YOU SUGGEST DELETION-Its a sunday, im revising for exams, there's probs no websites out there yet on Tunday as its a non display culture so press probs havnt picked up on it BUT!!! Ive already said im gonna search around lancashire for proof at one point--Guitar6strings 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)!

• Comment Then stop insisting on responding to ever single vote or comment, and find the proof. You don't seem to realize that you have already lost this debate because you have not provided any verification from any reliable source that this is anything more than something a bunch of schoolkids dreamed up last week. Bullet points: Notable, as verified by reliable sources. Without those things, it doesn't matter how many posts you make. Fan1967 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)