Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words invented by Shakespeare


 * 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 Keep, suggesting a merge with Shakespeare's influence on the English language or similar. --Tone 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of English words invented by Shakespeare

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

AfD was opened by User:Avowl, see description below. --B. Wolterding 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The information in the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. The origin's of the myth of the words invented by Shakespeare comes from the Oxford English Dictionary. People assume that since the first cited source in the OED is from Shakespeare that Shakespeare invented that word. This is false. The editors of the OED used the concordance to Shakespeare (a list of all the words in his works) to find citations for the Elizabethan period. They also had an editorial bias towards literary sources, especially important literary figures. These three books give this information in detail, with the Schäfer book dealing specifically with antedating words with the first citation from Shakespeare:

Lexicography and the OED edited by Lynda Mugglestone

Documentation in the OED by Jürgen Schäfer

Empire of Words by John Willinsky

The book Coined by Shakespeare for example using first citation as evidence that Shakespeare invented the word, which as stated above means little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avowl (talk • contribs)


 * Keep encyclopedic and semi-sourced. Needs some more, but that wouldn't be difficult.  If some of the words can be antedated to Shakespeare, then fix it.  Eliminator JR  Talk  19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, although the article should be converted to use inline sources for some key assertions. Wasn't this a split out of one of the other Shakespeare articles on its way to FA? The major problem I have with it is that the body seems to argue against the article title, so it should be List of words arguably coined by Shakespeare, or something more NPOV. As it is, it purports to be a list, it tells you the list is likely false or dubious, then gives you the list. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but a less pov title is needed to go with the disclaimer in the article which clearly express doubt. English words with coinage attributed to Shakespeare perhaps. It is preposterous that he coined these words, then put on plays where the actors recited lines full of words unknown to the audience. Many of the "coined" words were simply French or Latin words which were familiar to most listeners, or combinations of words. Did Shakespeare say, "From now on the Latin word pious will be also be the English word pious? The article also says OED was prone to overattributing to him because his works were more familiar to modern readers and easy to search. At least there is a reference or references for the claims, so it is not OR. Any editor is free to find reliable sources with earlier printed uses of the word as an English word. But wait: how do we know the earlier writer wasn't using frugal as a French word? Distinction without a difference.  Edison 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous reviewers. Probably rename it, definitely add citations.  I think that the comments made by the deletion nominator are better placed simply on the talk page rather than in a call for deletion, though the his points are valid and this action, even if it doesn't get the article deleted, will definitely motivate editors to make it better. Wrad 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to English words invented by Shakespeare since this is more than a list. -Docg 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the (if not the) English language's most important author's effects on the language is worthy of an article. Carlossuarez46 04:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand why this article shouldn't be deleted as it contains almost no verifiable information relating to Shakespeare. Almost all the words on the list were almost certainly not invented by Shakespeare. The burden of evidence is on showing they were rather than antedating them. Why should Wikipedia perpetuate this 'urban legend?' Avowl
 * Comment: I can't claim to have an informed opinion on the viability of the article (but perhaps it is better for the Wiki dictionary?), but if it is kept, it could be moved to English words first attested in the works of Shakespeare? That avoids the issue of whether WS actually coined the words. (The books cited in the article lack the usual bibliographical information: edition used, publisher, place, year etc. That needs to be fixed.) Pharamond 04:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not object to the name change if sourcing cannot prove the word's origin other than to say it first appeared in... Carlossuarez46 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs more sourcing, but it is useful, verifiable, and highly encyclopedic. This is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia trump Britannica. VanTucky 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If it needs sourcing, source it, but please keep the list&mdash;it's a verifiable record of the man's accomplishments, and is surely notable. &mdash;Ryan McDaniel 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with this article is not that it lacks sources but that sources cannot be found because the information, i.e. that Shakespeare invented the words on the list, is false. Avowl 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous comment by user RichardBrownon June 14 2007 at 8:49 CET
 * Keep this article but change its title to something along the lines of 'Words whose coinage has been attributed to Shakepeare". The article embodies a widespread belief that Sh did in fact coin a number of words- which affirmation by its nature is neither provable nor unprovable except on a case-by-case basis. As such, the affirmation is an established part of Shakespeare lore, in the same way as the unprovable 'fact' that he died on his birthday. The article should be commented as such, but left. It has served my students well as an introduction to the wider debate on verificability of historical documents.'
 * Comment Wouldn't an article with a list of words and the title 'Words whose coinage has been attributed to Shakepeare' just be misleading? Perhaps an article without any words, purportedly coined or otherwise, but a comment on the origins of this piece of 'common knowledge' and why it is false. Avowl 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I agree, to say 'coinage' or anything like it is misleading, as it means the same basic thing as 'invented by', although qualifying it with 'that have been attributed to' makes it better. We do need something different.  I wouldn't be opposed to the changes you suggest here, rather than a either deletion or keeping the article the way it is. Article titles so far have been a bit bulky. Perhaps simply Lexicography and Shakespeare?  This is simple and doesn't imply anything inappropriate, although people may expect an article that will illuminate the meaning of the words Shakespeare uses. Let me know what you all think.
 * Also, is there a term used in the books you mention that may lead to an appropriate title? Or perhaps a term for the study of the origin of words? That would be useful. Wrad 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eureka! Etymology is the study of word origins. Perhaps Etymology and Shakespeare?  This seems to fit very well.  The article could cover the history of Etymological subjects related to Shakespeare, and the controversies.  If merited through sources, we could eliminate the word list, and stick to the prose.  This seems very satisfactory to me. Wrad 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Contains words like fishify (fish with and "ify" after it, to turn into a fish) and noiseless (noise with "less" after it) that would not take a thousand years and a literary genius to come up with, as they are simply common words with a common suffix attached to them. Watch me be a little Shakespearean here and add my own words to the English language: "sockify", to turn into a sock, and "flossless", a state of being where one has no floss. These words or words like them were probably thought of and used in slang or conversation before Shakespeare was born.67.170.187.52 02:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)subtle_one
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's all very clever, but it neglects other, more notable words mentioned in the article, such as scuffle, bump, and grovel. The answer to your objection would be to remove less-important words, not to delete the article. Wrad 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep I originated this article and created the title (then using another user name). The original article was just a short paragraph, with the long list of words (which have remained since the beginning). The article has since been expanded by other contributors who added some good background on the evolution of the English language during Shakespeare's time.

Regarding the list of words, there were many more words I could have added, but I chose not to as the list was already getting pretty long. The author of my original source for these words (Michael Macrone, who cited the OED as his source) did not include the possibility that Shakespeare may have not invented all these words, but he did state Shakespeare was the first person to use a particular word. So essentially, Shakespeare may have first used the word, but that didn't mean he neccessarily invented the word—two different things. Well, as often happens here, contributors came along who have different and more wide ranging sources that showed the OED's research on Shakespeare's word inventions may have been flawed. Perhaps the article's title should have been different from the start, so I take responsibility for this. After new information was added, the article's title should have been changed. Since it would be nearly impossible to know which words Shakespeare actually created (unless someone has definitive sources on this) the title of the article should reflect this, even though article cites references that state Shakespeare's specific lexicographical contributions are uncertain. No one doubts Shakespeare's contribution to the English language, but the specific title of this article is misleading. Presuming this article is kept, I would support a change to any title, whatever is agreed upon. BearGuard 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I would strongly urge any rewrite of this article not to include the list because it only reflects the way in which the OED was written not Shakespeare's relation to English. The fact that the earliest citation in the OED is from Shakespeare definitely does not mean he was the first person to use the word in written or oral communication. When the editors were compiling the OED they relied heavily on the concordance to Shakespeare for words from the Elizabethan period. Since the list of words was compiled using this inaccurate reasoning, there is no reason to keep it and only get rid of words that can be individually antedated by a Wikipedia editor with a large library of publications from the 16th century. Avowl 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the list is currently the least attractive part of the article. Whatever notable words there may be can be mention in the prose. Wrad 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the various resons listed above. Although it's not actually part of my vote, I'd suggest a merge with another problematic article, Shakespeare's influence on the English language, and the stuff being discussed here, into a new page called Shakespeare's influence. AndyJones 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. This way it would match with other articles about Shakespeare. Wrad 13:14, 17 June 2007 (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.