Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays


 * 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. As a general proposition, I am reluctant to delete articles for lack of NPOV, as this is something that usually can be addressed by editing. In this case, however, the consensus of the established editors is that the article is so fundamentally flawed as to require a rewrite, and as such deletion is appropriate. There is a substantial agreement that the topic is notable, and there is no prejudice to the creation of an appropriately neutral article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory. The "Oxfordian" theory described here is only taken seriously by people operating outside of their field; within actual academic Shakespearean studies, it is universally dismissed. Having an article on the minute aspects of a fringe theory inherently gives it more weight and legitimacy than it deserves. *** Crotalus *** 17:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe you are mistaken. Saying the topic is "universally dismissed" is not accurate as several universities now offer degree courses in Shakespeare Authorship studies, and approximately 300 academics, the largest number of them in English literature, have signed this petition to express their doubt about the traditional attribution. Finally, a multi-million dollar "Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre" has just opened at Concordia University (Portland, Oregon). I would hope you might refactor your comment about academia universally dismissing the subject. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are already two articles about this: Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and Shakespeare authorship question. Absolutely no need for a third.


 * Keep. Legitimate split from a lengthy article. Now, did *** Crotalus *** really initiate this Afd ... or was it somebody else? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. You really read thru all these comments. Impressive. Smatprt (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Clarityfiend; not even worth a redirect. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this article was split from its parent article Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship due to length, as per wp:SPLITTING. It is not at all the same as Shakespeare authorship question, which merely gives an overview of the issue.


 * Keep As I understand it, the purpose of wikipedia is to provide the kind of forum that can't be found anywhere else, one where independent scholars can have their say. The close connection between Oxford's biography and the plots of the plays is solid evidence for his authorship, or that of someone who found his life fascinating.  No one would object if those promoting the Stratford biography wished to provide a similar list. Methinx (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — Methinx (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment You are mistaken. Please look at WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The key policy that applies here is WP:WEIGHT. The article gives excessive weight to a marginal position and fails to give due weight to criticism of the claims or to contrary evidence.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This deletion discussion is duplicating a merge discussion here []. Administrators are involved and Jimbo Wales even weighed in []. This article and several others are now being addressed so any deletion would be premature and against the consensus of the previous discussion. Smatprt (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Smaprt is correct that there are not "already two articles on this." The Oxfordians can hardly be dismissed on the one hand as "fringe theorists" and at the same time condemned for having generated a significant body of commentary on the plays which illustrates the strengths of their case. As remarked, "Crotalus horridus" vastly overstates the case for the closed minds of orthodox academicians, an increasing number of whom are open and curious to the debate. Crotalus also states, quite incorrectly, that the theory is "only taken seriously by people operating outside of their field." This merely shows that he is not well informed on the progress of the debate (I will gladly cite particulars upon request).--BenJonson (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument that Oxfordians generate a "significant" or at least a large body of writings hardly ddresses whether something is WP:FRINGE. Anyone wandering around the "alternative" section of a bookshop would find plenty of material on astrology, palmistry and other fringe material. Indeed talking the following quote from Michael Dobson's article on the authorship question in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, makes it clear that the "anti-Stratfordians" are nothing if not prolific:
 * Most observers, however, have been more impressed by the anti-Stratfordians' dogged immunity to documentary evidence, not only that which confirms that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, but that which establishes that several of the alternative candidates were long dead before he had finished doing so. ‘One thought perhaps offers a crumb of redeeming comfort,’ observed the controversy's most thorough historian, Samuel Schoenbaum, ‘the energy absorbed by the mania might otherwise have gone into politics.’

--Peter cohen (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you have posted this paragraph on several different forums now. It states someone's opinion, and not one fact. What is the point?Smatprt (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a WP:RS, and as a mainstream Shakespearean reference book one regarded as high quality per policy, which provides evidence that the theory advanced in the article up for deletion is WP:FRINGE and this should eb dealt with per that policy which certainly does not support the one-sided and therefore WP:UNDUE presentation of the fringe point of view with the article written in such a biased way that Shakespeare is not even called Shakesepeare.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Smatprt is right that this discussion duplicates another discussion. On the other hand "BenJohnson"'s reference to "the closed minds of orthodox academicians" makes it clear that we are dealing here with the advocates of a fringe theory who put down the rejection of their viewpoint by the vast majority of Shakespearian academia to "closed minds" rather than to the lack of evidence for their position. The New York Times survey of American Shakespeare academics contained results such as the following:
 * 18. Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?


 * 2% Has profound implications for the field


 * 3 An exciting opportunity for scholarship


 * 61 A theory without convincing evidence


 * 32 A waste of time and classroom distraction


 * 2 No opinion


 * (cont.) This demonstrates that the general position that Shakespeare did not write his own plays is considered of any interest by a tiny fringe of those working in the field with an order of magnitude more regarding it as a waste of time as consider it has profound implications for the field. Oxfordian theory is just one of several fringelets that make up the authorship fringe as a whole. The article under issue here is not written in a manner that acknowledges how marginal its subject is within the field of Shakespeare scholarship but rather contains unremitting propaganda in favour of the fringe viewpoint that is its subject.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, I see you have posted this here, as well. With all due respect, I think you may be misinterpreting the survey and "cherry-picking" one question in particular, then supplying your own interpretation. Yes, 32% consider it a waste of time (thus dismissing the issue). But that is not even close to a majority and completely negates the claim that a majority of scholars dismiss the entire subject. 61% consider it a theory without convincing evidence. That is certainly not "dismissing" the issue. Far from it. It means that 61% have actually considered the theory, yet are unconvinced, which makes absolute sense. Of course they do not find it convincing - if they did, then the authorship issue would be the accepted theory. But they certainly don't dismiss it, nor call it a waste of time. Why you keep posting this across forums is beyond me. Smatprt (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment From the percentages quoted in this and other questions, the respondents were not allowed to tick more than one box, and I believe you are reading more meaning into it that is warranted. The same with the 72% who mention it in their classroom that Schoenbaum earlier quoted as some kind of positive datum. With 61% and 32% effectively dismissing the idea (why you think teachers would spend class time on a theory for which they say there is no convincing evidence, I won't even hazard to guess), I think it highly doubtful that any meaningful give-and-take was indulged in by the 72%. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * responseTom - you keep doing that: "61 and 32 effectively dismissing" - Only 32% dismissed the issue, calling it "a waste of time and classroom distraction." They ticked the right box and said to themselves, "Damn right a waste of time. It's crap!" But a full 61% said that it was "a theory without convincing evidence". That is so very different than "dismissing" the subject completely out of hand. Smatprt (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it up and Madame Molotava will file a lawsuit for mind reading without a license. I can do the same trick, and my glimpse into the minds of all those who answered "a theory without no convincing evidence" (all 167 of them) tells me that they also thought it was a waste of time, but were only allowed to tick one box. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Isn't the NY Times more polling teachers than polling researchers? (I did not see the Times ask, When was the last time you contributed to the body of Shakespearean research?) And I think I recall a Times poll where they asked wood cutters what they thought about coal in the home, and later, a poll of whalemen on what they thought of Edwin Drake's prospects in the lamp oil industry. It may not be a fringe theory that William of Stratford was history's quickest study, but it should be no less fringy to observe that parallels to Oxford's life story figure in more Shakespearean plots than would normally be expected. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I would be equally receptive to a similar page on play parallels in William of Stratford's life or Marlowe's or Neville's. Elizabeth's, too--I'm game. Fotoguzzi (talk)


 * Keep The reasons given above to keep it make perfect sense for this page. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wysiwyget (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)  — Wysiwyget (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment A number of the !votes seem to be coming from editors with negligible recent contribution history who seem to have activated juhst to take part in the various threads and discussions related to this content dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION Is this discussion closed? The page under discussion indicates that it is, but I see no resolution. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (cont.) It appears I"m confused; it's the merge proposal that was closed (but my confusion still remains). Tom Reedy (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Deletion will result in a huge growth of the Oxfordian theory article, which then will be split into several pages, one of which will closely resemble this page. Seems like a waste of time. The attention that the bard authorship question gets in real life (e.g. supposedly > 5000 published books in favor of someone else alone) obviously warrants a few pages in wikipedia. Rather than deleting pages, could it perhaps be more constructive to have an "in defense of Shakespeare of Stratford" page under the bardauthorship umbrella? Afasmit (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A decision has been made to merge the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship article with the Shakespeare authorship question article, so your reasoning is invalid. An article defending Shakespeare's claim such as you suggest would allow the fringe theory to frame the argument, a tactic that is often used by authorship theory believers, but which is not conceded by any Shakespearean professional. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Response: Please note that the initial decision to "merge" has been clarified by the closer:


 * "My point is do not worry about which articles will be merged yet. Work on the sandbox and then see where content forking may be required. Merging is a stand-in idea for getting the various sticks-in-the-mud unstuck (and that applies to all sides who are engaging far too much in arguing with each other and not nearly enough with actually editing)." - and -   "to clarify: this is not to say that at the end of the day there will be only one article. This is only to say that we should proceed from the ideals ofWikipedia:Summary style and move forward."


 * This was also clarified by user:4meter4 with "In looking at ScienceApologist's further explanation of his ruling above (see my conversation) I don't think he has actually ruled in favor of either party of this debate. He's merely suspended judgement and directed everyone to create the sort of changes that must to be made. He hasn't made a ruling on any mergers or article deletions at all...yet. It's a "let's see the alternative first before deciding" approach. I think this is very smart and exactly what needs to be done in this contentious climate. This is a good opportunity for both sides to work constructively together." I am restating these as I want to make sure we are all acknowledging the current situation. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The page is nothing more than specious "evidence" manufactured because there is not one iota of real evidence that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. These types of "parallels" have been shown to be just as valid for other alternative candidates of the nobility, including King James and the 6th Earl of Derby. Given the number of characters and situations in Shakespeare's plays, and the fact that a good percentage of all plays of the time concerned the doings of the nobility, it's not that hard to "match" incidents and character traits to members of the nobility. Oxfordians appreciate very much the use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool for their theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Indeed! It is difficult to tell who is being referred to regarding the Gads Hill massacre of 20 May, in the fourteenth year of the reign. I think James and Derby dressed up as a pantomime horse for their part of the crime. Why was William of Stratford so obsessed with Derby? I realize that some have a zeal to purify the chaste wikipedia of moon-hoaxers, truthers, and ufologists, but I note that this article is two or three links removed from the Shakespeare article. The authorship controversy is bullet 7.1 in the Shakespeare article, so I'm thinking that, figuratively, junior will have to stand on the back of the sofa to reach the bookshelf containing the dread information. And isn't it better that junior be introduced to the shameful subject in a safe, controlled wiki-atmosphere rather than learn about it from his slutty cousin, Webouina? Fotoguzzi (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article is a split-off side article of the GA-nominated and Version 0.7-nominated Oxfordian theory article, which was too big per Wikipedia guidelines and needed to be split. Nor is the subject matter a fringe theory as defined by Wikipedia. Alternative viewpoint yes; fringe theory by no means. If anything, the article is merely new and unfinished -- there are scholar-noted Oxfordian parallels with every single Shakespeare play; these simply have not all been added yet to the new article. Article could use substantial updating and expansion. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork, that presents all of this as it it were undoubted. A NPOV presentation would require a fairly complete rewriting, giving the customary analysis for each point, not just the very few cases were an orthodox scholar happens to have said something that might be twisting into support the Oxfordian meaning. In this case, I think it would be best done by starting over, for the premise of the article is beyond redemption. (as a start, I would separate the materials dealing with the parallels between Oxford's life & family history and the plays from the material that it is asserted Oxford would have known, but not Shakespeare.  The presence of the material that can arguably be seen to be about Oxford is not  evidence that he wrote the plays personally;  whereas material that Shakespeare could not have known might be evidence, if one ignored the existence of indirect knowledge, and asserted Oxford wrote the works of  all other contemporary dramatists also.   I think it would be a mistake not to give the Oxfordian theory a separate article, but it must not be an article written so blatantly by a true believer.   DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per DGG. I'd reserved my opinion since I am known as a 'hostile' party, but now defer to  DGG's  considerable experience and known neutrality. Why wikipedians insist on defending an article which is rife with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV infractions, consisting of a sheet of assertions from WP:FRINGE material lacking any contextualization in mainstream scholarship is unexplained. Several such articles are being written, and added, which have no other function that to enliven the links on the main SAD page with more sectarian disinformation.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Worrying amounts of apparent original research and unverified material. Inherently POV, which is magnified by the tone and content of the article.--Slp1 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As good a place as any to begin reorganizing this walled garden. A new draft is being made with input from a wide range of editors that will be appropriately split if necessary. I am having a very hard time imagining that an article like this will be found in Wikipedia's future, and I see no particular reason that any of the content should be preserved in a non-deleting merge. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a legitimate split from a long article. The Oxfordian theory is one of the most, if not the most, accepted fringe theory on the Shakespearean authorship question, so this is a legitimate split article. North North-West (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the most accepted fringe theory"???? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep And add a "Stratfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays" if it is necessary. The mainstream theory has thousands of books and articles, but two articles (or really one article split in two) for Oxford is too many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.79.148 (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thousands of articles on Wikipedia? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP The Stratfordian point of view is based simply on tradition that began with misattribution of the works of Shakespeare. Search for historical records to back Stratfordianism finds a near vacuum. What one does find is the record of a man totally ill-suited to be the Bard: little if any education, commonplace experience, no record of writing, and, in fact, no proof even of literacy. So one is driven to look for the true author as countless scholars, writers, dramatists, and simply fact-driven people have now done. The favored solution is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as the author. With a score of books presenting the case for de Vere now published, the Oxfordian view is now rapidly headed for the accepted view. Removing an Oxfordian article would be a blemish on Wikiperdia's objectivity, judgement, and fairness that could haunt it for years. KEEP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardspear (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the Stratfordian position is based on unfounded and unsubstantiated facts stemming completely from conjecture and is the continuation of systematic poor analysis that has been passed off as scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.150.219 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP ...for now until the text of the Shakespeare Authorship Question page is settled. A premature deletion of this page would look like a flanking attack by those opposed to anything on Wikipedia about the issue, which is not the case. The time and energies of all should be devoted first to the main SAQ page. Wysiwyget (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (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.