- 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 No consensus. Walton Need some help? 17:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced conspiracy theory, unencyclopedic, violates WP:OR and WP:RS. east.718 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a notable conspiracy theory (full disclosure: I either started or expanded this article years ago, although a fair amount of it is frankly terrible knowing what I know now about how this site works). There'd have to be sources out there on this theory, but a quick Google is hampered by the fact that it shares its name with the title of an album. I'll work on sourcing, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup comment - A Google for "7 Day Theory" (in quotes) and "dead" (not in quotes) nets a series of results. Due to the nature of the thing, none of them are academic papers or anything along those lines, but there's certainly a lot of people arguing about it. It could almost be a meme of a certain type by now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may be notable as an internet meme, but as far as conspiracy theories go, it doesn't approach other articles such as those on 9/11 conspiracies or JFK conspiracies. This article, which was mainly developed by one user claiming ownership, has no sources, is compromised by weasel words and most of it is garbage ("this mysterious man may resurrect at a Walgreens, Metarie, LA [sic]", Makaveli rearranged spells "K am alive"). east.718 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which are, in the main, fair points. However, very few of them are reasons specifically to delete the article. If there's a user claiming ownership, that user should be cautioned about that. If there are no sources, sources should be added assuming there are some (there appear to be some from my Googling, and I'll see what can be usefully added). If there are weasel words, they should be removed. If sections are garbage (that anagram may appear to be garbage, but there's an awful lot of anagramming involved in this theory in the first place), then they should be removed as well. As far as its notability versus other well-known conspiracies, it should be noted that this one is (or was, at the very least) one on which pretty much everyone in a given subculture had an opinion. That it didn't spawn books and the like may simply be because it didn't involve a spectacular terrorist strike or the death of a powerful politician. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands right now, without citing a reputable source, the whole article is original research. Unless reliable sources can be found, the article should be deleted. east.718 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some more citations and removed the more egregious examples of people flying kites. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands right now, without citing a reputable source, the whole article is original research. Unless reliable sources can be found, the article should be deleted. east.718 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which are, in the main, fair points. However, very few of them are reasons specifically to delete the article. If there's a user claiming ownership, that user should be cautioned about that. If there are no sources, sources should be added assuming there are some (there appear to be some from my Googling, and I'll see what can be usefully added). If there are weasel words, they should be removed. If sections are garbage (that anagram may appear to be garbage, but there's an awful lot of anagramming involved in this theory in the first place), then they should be removed as well. As far as its notability versus other well-known conspiracies, it should be noted that this one is (or was, at the very least) one on which pretty much everyone in a given subculture had an opinion. That it didn't spawn books and the like may simply be because it didn't involve a spectacular terrorist strike or the death of a powerful politician. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may be notable as an internet meme, but as far as conspiracy theories go, it doesn't approach other articles such as those on 9/11 conspiracies or JFK conspiracies. This article, which was mainly developed by one user claiming ownership, has no sources, is compromised by weasel words and most of it is garbage ("this mysterious man may resurrect at a Walgreens, Metarie, LA [sic]", Makaveli rearranged spells "K am alive"). east.718 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup comment - A Google for "7 Day Theory" (in quotes) and "dead" (not in quotes) nets a series of results. Due to the nature of the thing, none of them are academic papers or anything along those lines, but there's certainly a lot of people arguing about it. It could almost be a meme of a certain type by now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article regards a fairly well-known conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.142.21 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: This anon has only 10 edits. east.718 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep partly on the ground that albums have been made referring specifically to the topic. I consider this as relevant as print. And the amount of discussion seems amazing. DGG 09:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the albums "refer to the topic" so much as "are part of the theory" (the Tupac album "Seven Day Theory" is cited as evidence in the theory), but there are definitely songs and remixes of songs which relate to it all. Why I couldn't think of that earlier is beyond me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable conspiracy theory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by License2Kill (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Would you just LOOK at this article. "He died in 1996, those digits add up to 25, 25 adds up to 7, so he's alive"? This appalling pile of scattered rumors and facts shouldn't earn the title of "notable" in the slightest. Beyong the fact that it's all totally unreferenced, nothing here has the slightest validility. People backing this up aren't building a reasonable argument for Pas being alive, they're just sad about the way things are, and wish they were different. Sorry, but associating Tupac with the number 7 in as many ways as possible DOESNT MEAN HES ALIVE. Also, just because some moronic people actually do believe that stuff, that doesn't mean they "follow the 7 Day Theory". That was just the subtitle of one of his albums, it doesn't mean anybody set up a theory under that name. This article reads like a message board for idiots. Definitely worth deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Pac (talk • contribs)
- Nobody's trying to use this article to prove that anyone's alive, dead or otherwise. There remains the fact that a large number of the claims can be backed up (as in "it it can be backed up that people believe X", not "X is true" necessarily). It's not the greatest name for a theory, but that's what it seems to be popularly called. Argue against the validity of the theory all you want, but that isn't a reason to delete it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Random collection of trivia, with no reliable sources. All references to components of the "theory" are Tripod or AOL member pages. No references to WP:RS showing that this particular conspiracy theory (as opposed to the general contention that Tupac faked his death) has any traction anywhere. Comedy skits are not reliable sources, either. Eggishorn 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: violation of WP:TRIVIA, WP:CS, WP:NPOV. The conspiracy itself may be notable, but the content of this article is (and will be) nothing more than a list of trivia and unverifiable guesses. I think that the section dealing with this subject in the article about Tupac Shakur suffices. --Tinctorius 14:52, 4 May 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.