Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian (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. v/r - TP 01:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another spinoff page trying to promote a fringe theory. Wikipedia's purpose is to document these theories, not to promote them; if the sources for this "chronology" are the promoters of the fringe theory themselves, it doesn't need its own article - probably does not even merit a mention in the main Oxfordian theory article. It also appears to be largely synthetic. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article was previously nominated for deletion and failed. Since that time the article has been improved even more, with some 60 edits, the majority of which were made to support the mainstream position such as this one, and this that added more mainstream RS references. Even this minor edit is an example of editing to address NPOV. As a result of these and scores of other edits, WP:DUE has been even further addressed, as has WP:SYNTH (compare with Chronology of Shakespeare's plays and List of Shakespeare authorship candidates in regards to identical synth issues). The article is far stronger and more in line with policies and guidelines than when it faced, and survived, its first AFD. It should be kept, and improved even further.Smatprt (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The main article explains that there is no definitive or authoritative chronology. The topic seems to be notable - see Contested Will for some interesting commentary.  Warden (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

*Keep - article is well referenced, and plainly states where doubt exists, so it is not NPOV, nor giving undue weight (plenty of other WP articles on Shakespeare, too). Theory is notable in itself as the citations show. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) See below.Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps you are unaware that almost all the references fail WP:RS. Ogburn's book is even given the wrong title. There is a book called "The Mystery of William Shakespeare", but it's not by Ogburn. I don't know what you mean by "plainly states where doubt exists". This whole chronology is considered nonsense by almost all specialists, so doubt - indeed outright disbelief - exists everywhere. The theory is notable, but this article is inherently POV because it only gives the "Oxfordian" POV, apart from some brief disclaimers and a highly POV portrayal of disagreements within the "mainstream". The article on the theory exists, and gives context with mainstream views. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has no real information except for the Simonton study, which proves it's all fantasy. There is no "Oxfordian chronology", there are only Oxfordians speculating, and this article is a promotional venue to raise the awareness of a fringe theory to the members of the lay public because their strategy is one of using Wikipedia for promotion, not scholarship. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Tom is correct that there is no such thing as an Oxfordian chronology, apart from the bare fact that the plays have to have been written before 1604, when Oxford died. Any argument that can be used for any particular play can be either be invented or culled from mainstream speculations about dating. Apart for that, there is no "Oxfordian chronology", because there is no methodology or consensus. The founder of the movement believed that Oxford did not even write The Tempest. Other plays are assigned by different writers to any number of dates in Oxford's life. Once you give up on the standard methodology which identifies an unfolding stylistic development linked to wider theatrical trends and events, then essentially you can put plays anywhere, in any order, depending on what aspects of Oxford's life you want to link them to. There is no particular reason why Ogburn junior's views are presented alongside a couple of other writers, but Ogburn senior is not, nor are Allen, Barrell, Ward, and a host of other writers who are arbitrarily ignored. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm, but wouldn't that be a reason for improving the article with the views of Allen, Barrell, Ward et al, rather than deleting it? Even if the Oxfordian theory is totally wrong, it seems to be notable as documented - remember we're talking about what is written about Shakespeare here, not the ultimate and inaccessible truth about what 'really' happened. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So since the article is nonsense, add more nonsense to improve it? Seems legit. Probably should go ahead and add the chronology for the Sir Thomas More case while we're at it.
 * Seriously, though, the editors who should be the most concerned about improving it and who should be the best acquainted with the topic are not interested in improving the article beyond promoting Oxford. A review of the editing histories of this and other SAQ-related pages makes that very clear. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As Tom says, this would simply mean adding more utter nonsense. Here's an example: Mr and Mrs Ogburn senior in their book This Star of England claim that Othello was "revised" by Oxford in the run-up to the 1588 Armada invasion! He'd apparently written Othello some time earlier, but the revised version "when presented to the public, did far more toward defeating Philip than any man's martial service would have done: for it helped to arouse the English fighting spirit, without which even the great Francis Drake might not have been able to combat the might of Spain." (p522) Even if Othello had been produced around 1588, for which, of course, there is no evidence, this would be a preposterous claim, but the notion that the play was written before 1588 is so far beyond rational literary history that it's impossible to discuss meaningfully. That's just one example, though. If you were to include all these speculations you'd end up with a meaningless jumble of dates for all the plays. That's because there is no coherent methodology. These is no "oxordian chronology". Paul B (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm beginning to think that if not WP:Patent Nonsense then at least WP:Utter B******s (o.n.o.) may apply to the Oxfordian theory. I've struck out my 'Keep' above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think you were right the first time - we should be "improving the article with the views of Allen, Barrell, Ward". And remember, Ogburn and Anderson, et al, have been published by independent third-party publishers with reputations for fact checking, which is the threshold for RS. There are plenty of ways to improve this article, which, by the way, has had very few specific complaints until now. In fact, both fringe and mainstream editors have both contributed to it with a minimum of controversy.Smatprt (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ogburn and Anderson, et al, are fringe promoters and as such are not independent and reliable, which is the threshold for fringe theory articles such as this one. Regardless, the threshold for a separate article is notability, which is a basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." This article fails that test, as well as WP:NOTADVOCATE. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Laying out a cross-chronology--comparing the conventional timeline with that of the authorship candidates life (personal and artistic), at the current level of understanding--is helpful/necessary for supporting/understanding any Shakespeare authorship candidate's argument. It shows that Oxford actually had dramatic works under his own name, and that not all works assigned to the Shakespeare canon are regarded by all as part of the whole.  Any weaknesses in the article can (and should) be addressed. With advances in understanding and knowledge will come enhancements to this article, and its usefulness/importance will grow in turn.  Artaxerxes (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that Oxford wrote dramatic works under his own name is already covered in his own article and is completely irrelevant to this timeline. The fact that "not all works assigned to the Shakespeare canon are regarded by all as part of the whole" has absolutely nothing to do with this topic either. It's covered in several articles: Shakespeare's collaborations, Shakespeare attribution studies, Shakespeare Apocrypha. Again, this has nothing to do with the chronology and there is no "current level of understanding". Paul B (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the information in this article is not duplicated in the bio article on Oxford, and is not duplicated in the article on the Oxfordian theory. There is a lot of talk about duplication and I want to be clear about this part of that conversation.Smatprt (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is all this duplication talk you speak of? Whether the information is available elsewhere on WP is irrelevant; all kinds of useless information cannot be found on WP. I have yet to see an article on the many uses of baling wire, but nobody is claiming that an article like that should be written. If it were it would have the virtue of at least being useful and relevant to the real world. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The fact that there are theories, fringey as they may be, does not mean that there is a chronology. WP should not present original research of fringe theory; keeping this article presupposes that the supposed alternative chronology exists, that a chronology is agreed on by reliable sources or that a consensus is reached by non-reliable sources. WP cannot pretend such an agreement exists, and keeping the article upholds that fiction. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments. There is disagreement over the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, and there is disagreement over the Oxfordian version being discussed here. Both articles present competing viewpoints (although the main Shakespeare chronology disregards most early scholarship on the matter and some notable dissenting viewpoints). In this case, just because there is no wide-spread agreement is no reason to delete the article. Also, there is plenty of information in this article that is NOT repeated in any other article. Comments to the contrary are incorrect on this. The repeated information is there so that NPOV is addressed and readers are clearly aware what the mainstream position is (the repeated bits) and what the minority viewpoint is (the non-repeated bits). As a WP:Fringe topic, views of the adherents are allowed, as long as they are published by independent mainstream publishers etc. That is precisely the case here with Ogburn and Anderson, for example. Smatprt (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The scholarly debate over the dating of Shakespeare's plays has the same relation to the Oxfordian chronology as historical revisionism has to historical denial. One is a legitimate scholarly pursuit, the other is a simulacrum of scholasticism in service to a fringe theory. Ogburn and Anderson are not independent reliable sources and are not to be conflated with independent mainstream publishers. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't reinterpret my words. I said that Ogburn and Anderson are "published by independent mainstream publishers". Of course "they" are not independent - anymore than James Shapiro or Alan Nelson are. They all have a car in this race. RS, when it comes to published material, is about the publisher. Are they independent, third-party publishers with a reputation for fact checking. I would say that Penguin and Bantam Books are both well known independent publishers!Smatprt (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reliance on the publisher as a determinant of what constitutes a reliable source is misplaced and misleading. WP:RS states that "The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability." As adherents and promoters of a fringe theory, the works of Ogburn and Anderson disqualify them as reliable sources for this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The complete chronology of the Shakespeare oeuvre, including Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, is sheer speculation -- ongoing speculation -- and there is no incontrovertible evidence for the various chronologies propounded by various scholars; nor does any manuscript exist of any Shakepeare play. We know the date of publication of the compilation which is called the First Folio, which was published 7 years after Will Shaksper of Stratford was dead. We don't know much else except a few contemporary reports of a handful of performances. Therefore, any light shed on the matter is valuable; there is no faulting it for being speculation because all Shakespeare chronologies are by definition speculation. This article offers a chronology which in fact may be as or more logical than many speculations, and offers information valuable to those researching the topic. To delete the article would in my mind be censoring Wikipedia. Since the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays states in the lead that it is only one possible chronology, one or more alternative chronologies, with concommitant reasoning and sources, should be acceptible on Wikipedia as well. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, seriously? "Keep because I am an antiStratfordian"? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Public Record Office documents in minute detail expenditures for perfornances at court, establishing a significant if partial choronology for the plays whether you believe that Oxford or Shakespeare — or Marlowe — wrote them. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The article Chronology of Shakespeare's plays is devoted to what is known about the chronology, according to reliable sources. Any suitably sourced information should be in that article, and there is no need to have a parallel article (WP:POVFORK) giving the situation according to a fringe theory. There is no "Oxfordian" scholarly tradition—the term simply refers to a vague grouping of people who maintain that Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare: a variety of reasoning is used, with a variety of differing conclusions, so no source can satisfactorily define an "Oxfordian chronology". Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a fork to promote a splinter theory. There are of course multiple reliable sources for the chronology, and they are in the main article. Claims that it amounts to "sheer speculation" confuses speculation with hypotheses based on some evidence -- though normally, less than complete security. The statement that there is nothing earlier than the first folio is simply false; there were editions of many of the plays published during his lifetime--indeed his active career. There is only one possible chronology in fact, and literary historians try to approximate it on the basis of evidence. There are not parallel universes in which different people wrote the plays. Censorship has of course nothing to do with it, and amounts to saying "you can't say these views are not important because that is censoring the expression of them". Of course we can and do say the relative importance of different views, and in topics where there is fringe work, we follow the scholarly consensus. The Oxfordian hypothesis is covered without there being multiple articles on it.  The relevant policies are FRINGE and RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The proposer of this deletion and everyone above endorsing it, make compelling cases for deleting this. This is nothing more than some folks in the real world messing with the scholars of the Bard's works. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform backing such things up. This theory deserves only modest coverage in the main articles on Shakespeare, and only coverage that is properly sourced. One of the pages around here said that The New York Times ran a poll that determined that a very high proportion of scholars viewed this as nonsense, and as just a huge waste of time. I'm surprised that this scale of time-wastage is tolerated, here. Alarbus (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments on my Keep, above: The related policies and guidelines that were followed in the evolvement of this article are:
 * Addressing the issue of merge or delete - This article is an extended version of this section in Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, an article which has already been split due to WP:LENGTH and WP:SIZERULE. If this article were deleted, the material would be merged into that parent article, which is already at 65kb and growing (current editors have announced intentions to add more mainstream rebuttals to the article). Besides, this article, at over 20kb, but needing work (add'l space), is notable on its own right (see 4th bullet).
 * Based on WP:SUM, the summary of this article is at the parent article [];
 * In order to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the lead clearly states the mainstream position in no uncertain terms, Also, please note the weight of the mainstream position in this overview section [, which was included in order to avoid any POV fork issues. Also the lead clearly states Mainstream Shakespearean scholars, Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza, Dean Keith Simonton and Sidney Thomas, who are quoted or referenced in criticizing the Oxfordian View. Finally, in furtherance of NPOV goals, the links to 2 mainstream websites which are severely critical of the Oxfordian Theory and th Oxfordian Chronology are also included in the article.
 * Finally, in terms of WP:NOTABLE, this specific issue (Oxfordian Chronology) is discussed in RS sources including those by mainstream Shakespearean scholars James Shapiro, Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza and Dean Kieth Simonton, by mainsream authorship debunker David Kathman, and by RS mainstream news sources including the New York Times, and Atlantic Monthly, among others. Smatprt (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are not two parallel universes with Chronology of Shakespeare's plays valid in one, and a different reality—the Oxfordian reality—in the other. Wikipedia has a name for a situation where an article is written to present the fringe view: it is a POV fork and is "inconsistent with Wikipedia policies". Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2011 (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.