Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship


 * 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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, trending more towards a consensus to keep following improvements to the article. Wikipedia covers fringe theories if the theory is itself notable. BD2412 T 02:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a WP:POVFORK of Shakespeare authorship question (the title subject is listed at List of Shakespeare authorship candidates), written in an extremely WP:PROFRINGE way, based on misinterpretation of sources, poor sources and at times deliberate WP:OR. Note how there is not even a token effort to put this into context with the majority view. I doubt there's anything of value here, and if there was reason to split this from the main article, WP:TNT would very likely apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Context: Special:Permalink/1029682008. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm interested in what the WP:GNG sources for this article are, if there are any. Per Florian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship, did this SAQ start in 1955? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, per the list article: Florio, John (1554–1625), linguist, proposed by Erik Reger in 1927,[17][42] and advocated by Lamberto Tassinari in 2014.[43]. Also an earlier article in Britannica (whose claims were later corrected). GNG (from sources independent of the promoters of the theory) would at best argue for a TNT approach to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:TNT is looking better and better the more I look at the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps some sort of merge with Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship, they seem to involve the same people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Crollalanza theory has nothing to do with Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship, they are two different theories and are not the same thing. Entire paragraphs have been removed without giving proper answer and explanation, even the link of the authorship website has been deleted. This is clear censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.101.133 (talk)
 * p111-112 disagrees with you, it treats Sr and Jr like a package deal. Luckily the internet is bigger than WP, there are blogs like where people can find the truth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very slow, I know. But I'd like to ask, before casting my !vote, why we are so keen to TNT this article when we are not rushing to delete similar pages? (Theories on Oxford's, Bacon's, Marlowe's and even Henry Neville's possible authorship all have articles which, quite reasonably, point out that they are deemed fringe theories within the scholarship but are acknowledged by reliable sources to be notable).* Looking at the references, there are numerous chapters, articles and entire books that appear to address the topic (so broad coverage?) ad if they've been doing so for ~90 years then that's pretty persistent coverage too. Looking at the WP:ANI discussion (which brought me here, for the record), I see it has attracted much disruption (not unexpectedly, of course, otherwise the whole shebang wouldn't be under ARBDS), and it appears to have been sorted with the application of a few forensic blocks and protections. There's also plenty wrong with the article as it stands; but since WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, any issues of POV, WP:TEND, and the other litany of breaches of protocol contained in the nom can be addressed with a good old-fashioned re-writing. Of course, I'm open to persuasion, but right now this seems close to a .  ——  Serial  16:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * * Also note: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has recently been re-written and may not say quite what one remembers it as saying.
 * Quick note: I don't think OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has been meaningfully rewritten recently. It was renamed, but renamed to what it actually says and has as long as I've seen it. If it was rewritten, that was prior to around Dec 2020/Jan 2021. Vaticidalprophet 04:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The article is totally either (a)WP:OR or (b) fraudulent abuse of sources. I think we can manage about 4 or 5 strong refs which mention it recently en passant (or is that pissant?). The editor(s) have consistently deliberately misconstrued the sources they cite, and skewed things to make it look as though. There looks like quite a bit of text remaining after Random Canadian's deft scissorwork, and a few edits by myself, but that is still WP:OR. It is an Italian fascist theory in origin, picked up by journalist, repromoted after the war in books no one read, and only took wing with the internet's disinformational pandemic and its love of conspiracy theories. One could make a case for documenting the story's idiotic line of descent, so that Wikipedia could conserve at least a reliable presentation of the hypothesis. That could be done in a short page of two or three paragraphs. What should be avoided at all costs is restoring material to the John Florio bio where it was an immense eyesore and egregiously undue.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the sources are from promoters of the theory. The article also includes much OR. I'm dubious there's much of this one that could be kept in a more balanced article. The articles on Marlowe, Bacon, Oxford and so on at least include what the academic consensus is, and don't make ridiculous statements, entirely OR, such as "It is clear that John Florio is the same pen that wrote Shakespeare's dedication to the young Earl."... They look like legitimate articles covering fringe theories, like Moon landing conspiracy theories (although some more balancing could likely be done in this case). Whatever OSE has been re-written to, the general spirit is that false comparisons should be avoided. In this case, we would likely need for all of the existing article to be trimmed. There are whole OR/SYNTH sections which do not make any attempt at balancing with the scholarly consensus... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs to be re-written; I do not see how deletion aids the WP:READER. ——  Serial  17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SN, I feel you, and I'm not so sure myself. But, and here's a big but, one argument for deletion is, first of all, that the article as it stands is completely incoherent and is written by COI editors: as a Wikipedia article, it's just really bad. (OK, it has pictures, and that's always a plus.) Second, the way I read FRINGE, it can be notable (noteworthy) only if reliable sources have seriously discussed the subject--in this case the statement "Florio wrote Shakespeare". I've reported on a bit of sourcing on Talk:Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and there just isn't anything at all--I'm sure there's more than what I found, but if JSTOR only gives me two passing mentions that the authors don't even consider important enough to comment on (one has one tongue-in-cheek sentence, the other simply lists it as one of many), then I am not going to get my hopes up. What I think should be written, and much of this content (if rewritten and properly sourced, with secondary sources) can help with that, is an article called "Florionistic influences on Shakespeare" or something like that. In fact, I guess I could have moved the entire article to a new title before it was nominated and we could have had very different discussions--but perhaps the three editors would have sent a hit squad out for me. (JOKE ALERT THIS IS A JOKE I'M NOT REALLY THINKING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THAT) Drmies (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Drmies, "Florionistic influences on Shakespeare", could very well be a decent article, if you haven't heard, there's an interesting article in The Guardian: . Florio is not mentioned at Shakespeare's editors, maybe he should be. We have articles like Sources of Hamlet, but not, I think, a general "Influences on Shakespeare"., maybe you should look into that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I've NEVER heard that article before--it says Florio wrote Shakespeare! We should totally put that on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The case that this needs a stand-alone article looks dubious at best, and the content is in poor enough form that WP:TNT applies (if the topic were notable, then starting from scratch would be easier, and less likely to invite pro-fringe reverts). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominator note I've done a substantial run-through the article, removing most of the obvious OR and a significant portion of the unrelated SYNTH. Based on this, I now alter my nomination to suggest a delete (based on the same rationale) and recreate as a redirect to John Florio. There's nothing useful in the current history (unless you want a class in removing obvious OR from articles, but you don't need that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable idea. User:Serial Number 54129? Drmies (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to John Florio. Redirecting sounds like a good idea. I may be very dumb today,, but why does the article need first deleting and then recreating as a redirect, as opposed to the usual procedure of merely editing it to make it a redirect and preserving the history? I understand that the history is of limited value, but how is it actively harmful? Is it because the history would make it easier to un-redirect and re-article it? I believe that any redirect would be under pro-fringe attack and would need protecting, so in that sense there's no difference. Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC).
 * Redirect per Bishonen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, I must protest the devastation of usable sources taking place. I'm quite prepared to rework this 'thing' exactly along the lines we did with the other candidate articles, in three paragraphs, ordered chronologically, using only scholarly sources that comment on this specific theory, of which I have several. But everytime I look, I see proper sources removed, or direct links to the relevant book pages removed and reformatted so the reader can no longer access them and verify etc. I know that most, like me, find the article a motherlode of bullshit, but we have enough good sources to establish a precise reconstruction of the idea which is now mushrooming broadly on the internet. That is one of wiki's functions-Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RL matters permitting, I'll replace later today the text we have with a thoroughly revised, and strictly top RS based version giving the wacky notion its historical outline  in 3 parts (a)Paladino (b) Post-war (c) 2000 onwards. Then we can mull giving the flick pass to the lot, or embalming something worth mummifying for the wiki museum of waxing and waning outlandish notions. Nishidani (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds notable from the discussion up above; given the sources that are discussed here and cited in the article, I don't understand why we'd deem it non-notable. Not having consulted those sources (beyond evaluating them), I can't agree or disagree with Nishidani's argument that the sources are badly abused at best.  But if this gets deleted, it needs to be on the WP:TNT grounds suggested by the nominator.  Nyttend backup (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. An amount of explosive has been applied. My hope is that at some future point it can be merged with Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship into a The Florios and the Shakespeare authorship question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominator note the WP:HEY treatment seems to have been applied. I do notice that very little of the previous text has been kept, so that seems like quite some TNT to me. In any case, the article in its current state is much better than when I nominated this so if  are willing to update their !votes, we can close this as "withdrawn". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still think the sourcing is flimsy, with the passing mentions and the self-published brochures, so I'm sticking with Redirect to John Florio. The relevant section there could perhaps be plumped up a little. Of course it seems a pity that the recent good work should go for naught, but couldn't it be applied to an article about Florio's relation to Shakespeare, or Florio as Shakespeare's editor, instead? Compare Saul Frampton's 2013 Guardian article (which was supposed to herald a forthcoming book, but I can't find that it has forthcome). Isn't an article about "the" Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship a bit of a straightjacket for the material? ? Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC).
 * Well, Bish, if you can point out any flimsy sourcing, I'd appreciate it, since everything there passes RS as far as I understand it. The brochure stuff is what sources call it, and there is no direct quoting of the crap mill's products unless a secondary source refers to them. Florio was, and remains, a magnificent figure, and I hate to see his bio blighted or smeared by this crap in a section. We should do what we did with the attempts to load up the Shakespeare article with authorship doubts, i.e. we sequestered the lot and wrote the FA SAQ article. Containment, in short. Frampton dropped his promised work. Florio studies are flourishing, minute, complex, and perhaps it looked too daunting. Remember WP:Systemic bias. There's quite a lot of high-class balderdash circulating on the continent about this theory since Tassinari's puerile piece hit the fan, with notable thinkers and cultural identities, and even some tenured academics taking it on board, and, in response, little reaction in the Anglocentric world, despite the efforts of the French Shakespearean Society to stop the meme machine in its tracks. A sort of peripheral ticking bomb that I feel is worth disarming (finally jumping at the chance to defuse an explosive, a metaphorical reprise of what my father once did in Libya in WW2 - and then shat himself afterwards in a delayed fear reaction!). It's not on our radar, but here in Italy and France the noise effect is audible. We need articles that go into the guts of fake news, surely? Much of this will become apparent if I'm given  the chance to add the second half, about the proliferation of the meme in the 2000 decades.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to close this early, so the customary week is young yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, WHO WROTE the passage starting with "Paladino subsequently expanded..."? That editor deserves a barnstar, and donuts. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I'm generally sceptical of the notability of articles on the individual conspiracy theories, and this one is on the fringe of the fringe, so long as we have the others I'm disinclined to use that alone as a factor. In addition, with Nishidani's ongoing rewrite this has in effect been nuked and rewritten from scratch. What's currently there (which has further expanded since the nom offered to withdraw) leaps neatly over GNG and is an easy C-class article (it'd be eligible for GA, and not unlikely to pass, now). It's definitely too extensive for a section in the biographical article. There is future potential for merging with the closely related fringe theory centred around the father, but I see no particular reason to force that outcome now. In fact, I would sooner suggest Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship be merged into this one than the other way around.I am also inclined to weigh Nishidani's argument above that having the article corrals the adherents to one place where they will cause relatively less disruption and can more easily be dealt with (whether that dealing entails education, gentle troutings, or thwacks upside the head with military-grade cluesticks). Trench warfare between Oxfordians, Baconians, and Florians on the same page would seem apt to cause significant collateral damage.PS. I've dug around the cites there. The fringe stuff is being used appropriately as acceptable primary sources (i.e. they meet WP:RS by complying with the guidelines in WP:SELFSOURCE). The sourcing is a little bit weak in places, but not because of the fringe sources, just because there is a relative paucity of high quality secondary sources that have given the subject in-depth attention. At, say, FAC, some of it wouldn't hold up (but then, even William Shakespeare took a beating at FAC!), but for anything less I think it's perfectly fine. It's "still room for improvement" stuff, not anything disqualifying. --Xover (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care which article are considered merged into which, or if a new article is created and the two current ones are merged into that one, as long as the outcome is one Florio-SAQ article. "Florian theory..." maybe an ok name, Crollalanza will be a redirect anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted to more fully consider the rewritten article and whether it should remain as a stand alone article or be redirected.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article appears to be fine in it's current form. Xover makes excellent points about the appropiate use of primary sources.--🌀 Locomotive207 - talk  🌀  02:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a POV fork, but a legitimate sub-page that facilitates reading of the much bigger page on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2021 (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.