Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Day Theory (2nd nomination)

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 was delete. Peacent 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 Day Theory (2nd nomination)

Ridiculous article that is pure nonsense and as unencyclopedic as one could imagine an article being. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a massive WP:OR violation. No reliable sources quoted, no assertion of notability. -- Kesh 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's not my article, but I am warring tired of trying to make that article look decient. Too many times, I tried to make this into Seven Day Theory, I tried to place reasonable information in the article, and tried to compromise with unwilling users. Go ahead, I am tired of these horrible articles with lack of creativity as explained in originality. LILVOKA 06:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a hoax to me. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's something someone appears to have made up, and it appears to be numerology. No sources, totally unencyclopedic. It's no Paul is dead. --Haemo 07:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may not be a , but it is complete WP:OR, has no references, and pure unencyclopedic nonsense. east.718 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator followed improper procedure in sending this to AfD, here's the first nomination. east.718 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grumble. I'll fix this. --Haemo 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's done; I hope no one complains about the re-bumping of this. --Haemo 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed that, sorry.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I am somewhat surprised this survived two nominations. Basically an unsourced collection of trivia, and I see no reliable sources talking about this theory. J Milburn 11:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:OR Thunderwing 11:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crunch13 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Interesting, but not verifiable. WP:OR, and no sources. *Cremepuff 222* 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Sorry, but as someone who used to think that his life was filled with references to the numbers 7 and 11, I can say that one can manipulate numbers as much as it takes to find a pattern... including getting a job at a Seven-11, living in a place where the highway numbers added up to 7 and 11, etc.... It ranks up there (or down there) with the Bible Code.
Delete albeit reluctantly. I maintain that, to a certain sector of society, this is a notable conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, it's that self-same sector which has made the article practically unusable and full of unsourced original research. Last time round, I tried to clean it up and introduce some kind of sanity into the thing, but this time around I don't think it can be done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK THINK THIS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS

THE INFORMATION IN THERE IS CORRECT
ITS TRUE ITS A CONSPIRACY THEORY
IF YOU DO ALL IT SAYS LIKE LISTEN TO THE SONG OR DO THE THE MATH ALL THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT
TRUE, YOU MIGH NOT LIKE THE ARTICLE BUT THERES ALOT OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIKE THIS PAGE SO PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE PAGE SINCE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKE IT
IT SHOULD STAY BECAUSE THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT BUT THE THING IS, YOU JUST CAN'T FIND THE INFORMATION ANYWHERE ELSE SINCE ALL THIS IS DONE USING MATH.
SO PLEASE CONSIDER THIA AND SAVE THIS PAGE— Preceding unsigned comment added by Visalia (talk • contribs)

In response to those claims: (1) There's actually no proof that the information is correct (either in the sense that the conspiracy is true or in the sense that several of the things being claimed are true). (2) See the first response. (3) See the first response. (4) Whether or not we "like" the page isn't (or shouldn't be) relevant for those of us advocating deletion. What matters is whether or not the information is verifiable and supported by reliable sources, which currently it is not. (5) Where are the sources showing that people have done this? Without them, it's original research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, bad numerology. Edward321 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.