Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Henry Neville 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir Henry Neville theory of Shakespeare Authorship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not entirely sure what the purpose of the article is - especially given that the formatting is fairly poor, and a lot of [wikilink] and [footx] codes are randomly in there for some reason. It doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but looks like it could have been pasted from somewhere? In any case, it should be merged with the Henry Neville main article if there's any merit in the content whatsoever in my opinion. &#124; Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 07:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete(changed to userfy, see below) (struck once again and withholding judgement for now) – Don't think it's a copyvio; my best guess, given that there are notes like "[wikilink??]" and the formatting of the bullet lists, would be that the author wrote the article in Word and hasn't gotten the grasp of wikiformatting. Either way it looks to be OR. (changed to keep as of 8 April 2016, see below) — Nizolan ' (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could hold-off deleting unless I've finished formatting (and you've read it). I've only been working on it in the last 4 hours. This was written as agreed in response to a discussion of the Shakespeare Authorship Question of 24 November 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&oldid=692321093 . RalphWinwood (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but at the moment the article is basically illegible. If you are planning to make it presentable, I recommend it be userfied (at e.g. User:RalphWinwood/Sir Henry Neville theory of Shakespeare authorship) so you can work on it there before posting it in mainspace, per Help:Userspace draft. It's not appropriate as a published article at the moment. (Per WP:USERFY you can't do that yourself until this AfD is closed.) — Nizolan  (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article formatting has been substantially cleaned up. — Nizolan  (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The page is a mess, so the creator would do well to learn how to properly code and format before continuing to write pages like this. But, we are here meant to be looking to see if the subject of the page is or is not notable.  It seems to me that there do indeed exist references which might suggest that the idea Henry Neville wrote the Shakespearian works.  These include  this book this book etc.  I think this suggests the subject may indeed be considered notable, although it seems highly likely that the page needs to be WP:TNT.  JMWt (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed most formatting issues now and the references should be clearer. As mentioned, this article was proposed in November.RalphWinwood (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've also alerted the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare. That should hopefully get some extra eyes on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, whatever the merits of the article. WP:TNT at this point clearly doesn't apply, from what I now see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The page looks a lot better now that the formatting has been cleaned up, so userfication might not be necessary. I will withhold judgement on the overall notability of the topic for now, other than noting that WP:FRINGE probably applies. — Nizolan  (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing to userfy This article is riddled with OR from the looks of it and is still a real candidate for WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Still, the multiple books about this theory make it a notable subject. This material really should have been developed in the article about Neville and then spun off rather than started from scratch by a new unsupervised editor. Incidentally, once the deletion question is settled this should be moved to Nevillian theory of Shakespeare authorship as the current title is both clunky and in the wrong case. (Please see Category:Shakespeare authorship theories for other such entries.) This article really needs to be re-worked and it's apparent that the proponent for the article doesn't understand editing. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do explore the references. I don't believe you will find examples of OR. As to the need for a separate article I refer you to the earlier discussion on this from 24 November 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&oldid=692321093 RalphWinwood (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did check through some of them and it appears that most of the assertions are correctly cited, but the type of OR outlined at WP:SYNTH is a more pertinent concern with for example the Parliamentary biography and the Lesser book, which seem to be being spun to support the theory but don't themselves support it. Just my impression. — Nizolan  (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

- Neville's mentor translated Polybius (Lesser et al.);
 * Keep I think this article doesn't include a problem with WP:SYNTH: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." In this case it is Leyland and Goding who have published the same argument as in the article. Their argument runs:

- Neville uniquely promoted Polybius's "mixed govt" in Parliament (Lesser);

- Neville assisted Beaumont and Fletcher's play about "mixed govt" (Lesser);

- Shakespeare is the only other playwright who dealt with "mixed govt", in Othello (Lesser);

- Shakespeare's Sonnets include a code (Hotson, Rollet, James, Leyland and Goding et al.);

- The Shakespeare code derives from Polybius (Leyland and Goding);

- Neville used Polybius in his diplomatic codes (Leyland and Goding). RalphWinwood (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have amended the article per the notes in previous comment.RalphWinwood (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-sourced article about important topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Merge back to Henry Neville. This substantive content in this article on its purported subject amounts to two paragraphs, compared to one short one in the biography.  There are lots of theories out there as to who else might have written the plays.  The appropriate way of linking them is via a category for "suggested authors of Shakespeare's works" or such like.  Plain deletion should not be an option, but I do not think this is worth a free-standing article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is too much important stuff to be merged, it would make the Henry Neville article cumbersome. There are possibilities for the article to be extended further. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC).
 * I agree there's not much to it, though it's gained some attention recently that put it ahead of the Derbyite theory of Shakespeare authorship, IMO. One option could be to give it a couple of grafs in the Shakespeare authorship question article. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy This article doesn't meet even the minimum WP guidelines, especially in sourcing, for WP:FRINGE topics. The editor needs to learn basic WP standards and rewrite the article to comply with them. In addition, I see a few WP:OR vios. I suggest this be moved from the mainspace to be reworked and resubmitted before it is allowed in the main encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please specify the WP:OR violations you see.RalphWinwood (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I edited one out by cutting the Schoenbaum citation. When I have time I'll list some others. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks I think I get this one. Schoenbaum says the sonnets are cryptic but he doesn't suggest there's a code. Many scholars have observed that the sonnets are cryptic. Perhaps the cryptic nature of the sonnets and the dedication deserves its own sentence and several citations.RalphWinwood (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This entire paragraph appears to be an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: "Neville himself was born in the building that later became Blackfriars Theatre. Later his father assisted with the lease of Blackfriars to the Children of the Chapel for this purpose.[4] Neville spent his boyhood at Billingbear near Windsor where his father was a forester.[5] Windsor is depicted in some detail in The Merry Wives of Windsor." Tom Reedy (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy to modify this article to improve it factually and for balance. Please don't interpret the following as obstructive, I simply don't understand how this para is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The information about Blackfriars and Billingbear is readily verifiable fact. Brenda James notes intimate knowledge of Windsor and that the Merry Wives has this also. This is her synthesis - which perhaps should be cited.


 * Delete Changed to Keep due to new sources found While the subject of the article could potentially be notable, RalphWinwood is only here to push the Neville theory (an ArbCom sanctioned matter). If someone who does not have a history of pushing fringe theories volunteered to work on this article in their own user space (not RalphWinwood's), I would change to userfy.  But if we userfy it and RalphWinwood remains the main editor, this will just end up at MfD.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)  Addendum: I have found three sources that are independent of the theory and demonstrate notability for fringe topics.  Two of them I found on accident while trying to find anything else by the publisher of the original book, so I'm curious how the main contributor of the article failed to find them if he really was trying to be neutral and not just POV-push. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to make the best article possible. Please make suggestions for improvement or even go ahead yourself and improve it. Newcomers are encouraged to be bold and that's the line I've taken in the belief that refinement will follow. If there are informed rebuttals of Neville's candidacy they should go here too - I just don't know of any material objection other than that the whole Shakespeare Authorship Question is for the lunatic fringe (despite its many notable adherents).RalphWinwood (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with you being new, it has to do with the fact that all of your edits are singularly focused on pushing the idea that Neville is definitely the author of the plays. If you were operating from a neutral perspective, whatever you believed wouldn't be an issue.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Although I am a default Stratfordian, I do not think that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is only for the lunatic fringe. There are too many open questions like the missing years, unexpected knowledge etc., etc. The question of authorship is one that may be legitimately debated provided that this is done in a sober and scholarly manner. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC).
 * I'm inclined to agree, but it should not be handled by accounts that obviously registered purely to advocate a viewpoint that the overwhelming majority of academics in relevant fields do not support. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what the account is alleged to be registered to be. What matters is the article that results, and this one falls into the scholarly and sober category. Don't forget, anybody can edit Wikipedia, and if articles get one-sided, they can be edited rather than deleted. Your objections seem to be based on WP:I don't like it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Even a cursory glance over the account's edits renders the SPA assessment to be more than mere allegations. As I said before, if an editor who was not here solely to push the theory as WP:THETRUTH were the main contributor (even if they believe the theory, but operate from a neutral perspective), then I'd be fine with them working on it.  WP:IDLI is not an issue there, because it's not the article subject in itself that I have an issue with.  You might begin to have an argument with WP:ATTP, but I have not attacked the main editor, merely pointed out that his behavior is the sort that generally leads to topic bans in this area and results in articles that require WP:TNT.  In this case, we have an article built on sources advocating the theory instead of sources independent of the subject, as is required for WP:FRINGE material (and even though it is on the more level-headed fringes of fringe theories, it is still fringe per ArbCom).  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I welcome exploration of my edits. The commentator objected to my attempt to rebut the status of the Shakespeare Authorship Question as "fringe" on the SAQ page. The one random survey of 265 US Shakespeare academics showed 17% considered Shakespeare was possibly not the author. The SAQ page (following ARB decision) and its characterisation of the question as "Fringe" is predicated on the selected opinions of people who are experts on their preferred candidate (William Shakespeare of Stratford) but who are not necessarily experts in the proportion of their peers who share their view. I would suggest that this proportion can only be determined by counting, and the only count we have is the NY Times Survey of 2007.RalphWinwood (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As was explained on the talk page, that phone poll is useless in every possible way (too small a sample size, phone polls "prove" creationism). Tertiary literature more adequately summarizes mainstream academia because academia is a field that thrives off of pointing out the errors of big names.  There's a long list of sources in the SAQ page that addresses the fringe issue, and it's not just some guy's opinion as you downplay it as.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The equation of the SAQ with "creationism" is a false one and a familiar argumentum ad absurdum  only. Re. "opinion" vs quantitative data I refer you to my previous comment. By the way, 6% of this random sample of the 265 Shakespeare academics considered an alternative candidate "probable". The application of the pejorative term "fringe" to the SAQ is not based on evidence; but like an equation with "creationism" it may well serve to discourage further investigation of the topic.RalphWinwood (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The comparison of tactics used by proponents of fringe theories is sound. The sample size was infinitesimal, and if you truly understood quantitative analysis, you'd understand that.  Pointing to your previous comment and failing to address other comments is not a good idea.  The assessment that it is fringe is based on a long list of sources that are already given in the article, as has been explained for you before.  Also, how is it that you completely failed to find any negative sources when I accidentally stumbled across two just trying to find anythnig else by the publisher of The Truth Will Out?  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful to you for pointing out these rebuttals and will certainly review them closely. To your point about the long list of sources in the SAQ article. I very much hope that the article will retain the 1st para reference about scholars discussing the SAQ purely to "disparage" it. The reference cites this from Alan Nelson : "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... antagonism to the authorship debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure...". In this environment it would not seem unreasonable to surmise that the level of doubt surrounding the Stratford candidate may well be under-reported.RalphWinwood (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. One of the big problems is that AFAIK there hasn't been any academic response to this particular theory, which means that it's going to be a problem to find reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the article eight books have been written about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Those are not Fringe_theories, as is required. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Eight is enough to almost make it mainstream. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Eight books that are not independent sources. I noticed that some of them otherwise are from academic publishers, but they're still advocating a topic that is still currently fringe.  When independent sources are describing it as alternative but mainstream and not fringe, then the fact that those sources are not independent wouldn't matter.  Until then, they may as well be primary sources in terms of sustaining notability.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are they not independent? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
 * The article refers to "eight books [...] written supporting their theory." What is really needed is a tertiary analysis that reviews the field, as is currently used in the SAQ article, with the Christ Myth Theory, and various other fringe topics.  The article doesn't list those books, which also raises the issue of whether or not they even meet WP:RS.  So far, going through the article's history, I'm seeing:
 * The original book: The Truth Will Out (James, Rubinstein)
 * Three books by the authors of the original book: Who wrote Shakespeare's Plays (Rubinstein), Henry Neville and the Shakespeare Code (James), Understanding the Invisible Shakespeare (James): by the authors of the first book
 * A book co-written by an author of the original book: Sir Henry Neville was Shakespeare (Casson, Rubinstein)
 * Three books written by the above co-author: Enter Pursued by a Bear (Casson), Much Ado About Noting (Casson), Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare (Casson, Bradbeer)
 * Only one book with no other connection to the original authors: Decrypted: Shakespeare, Sir Henry Neville and the Sonnets (Leyland, Goding)
 * So when it says "eight books," it's not like every single one of them was from someone with no connection to the original authors. All but one of them are by the original authors or someone they have co-written with.  There's also the curious name of the publisher of many of these books, Music for Strings.  In trying to find anything else by them, I did find this critical work, as well as this one.  I found those accidentally while trying to find anything this "Music for Strings" publishing company (which appears to be a music publisher).  And yet, they have not been added by our supposedly neutral main editor.   Those two sources, however, do establish notability provided someone incorporates them into the article.  Actually looking for independent sources (despite WP:BURDEN), I found this as well.  I have changed to "keep," but only in the hopes that these sources are incorporated. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the research to demonstrate that keep is appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks Ian.thomson for the rebuttals. They should be reviewed with a view to including.RalphWinwood (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've included reference to 2 of the 3 rebuttals in the Introduction. I suggest not including reference to The quest for Cardenio: Shakespeare, Fletcher, Cervantes, and the Lost PlayBy David Carnegie, Gary Taylor p70-72. I haven't read the whole book, but I have read from your reference point. Carnegie and Taylor do not rebut Casson's assertion that Neville may be the author of Shakespeare. Rather they assert his evidence is comparatively weak in identifying Neville's hand in Double Falsehood/Cardenio because he relies on image clustering and does not use stylometic analysis. Indeed, they express interest in his research (p71) and thank him for his collegiality in relation to information on Don Quixote (p72)


 * Comment. I am reluctant to change my vote because of RalphWinwood's insistence that the SAQ is not a fringe theory, and therefore not subject to the guidelines of WP:FRINGE, which opens the door for time-wasting disruption in the future. Nor has he indicated that he has read the |arbitration guidelines governing the SAQ, much less that he has agreed to comply with them. I would like to see him demonstrate that he understands the |principles of the encyclopedia project, especially WP:POV. Otherwise I think this article will become yet another SAQ [WP:WAR|battleground]. I've had enough of that to last the rest of my life. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have inserted two rebuttals as suggested by Ian.thomson and I'm very happy to look at others. It seems to me that this discussion has been most productive and the article has benefited greatly. On the question of WP:POV, I'm certainly very excited by the case for Neville and very interested to discover more. I don't believe that this prevents me writing a balanced article about his candidacy.RalphWinwood (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – This article looks to be in much better shape than when I originally !voted on this, especially with the balance that has introduced. AfD isn't meant to be cleanup, but it looks like it's acted as such in this case. Despite any SPA concerns Ralph has acted in good faith and I'm pleased to see that. I still have reservations about the content of the article, but on the whole it doesn't seem overly POV-pushing, and is supported with a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources. So I'm happy for the article to be kept; any content concerns can be ironed out at the article itself. — Nizolan  (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  04:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy. If the number of votes are an indication, it appears that the article is going to be kept, but it is far from being a neutral report of the theory. Despite the boiler-plate disclaimers, the number of unexamined assumptions crucial to the theory ("Windsor is depicted in some detail in The Merry Wives of Windsor", "The calamitous change of fortune suggested in the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays", etc.) is enough to disqualify it on grounds of WP:NPOV alone, and there is no academic response to the specific theory included. In addition, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH still abound (see every statement sourced to History of Parliament Online, theatre Database, and other non-SAQ sites). All in all, it has too many problems meeting the minimum standards of an encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You have voted twice.RalphWinwood (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From your comments I take it that you are not disputing the factual foundation but rather that there is an impression that the synthesis is occurring in this article. This can easily be remedied by adding references to the syntheses of the SAQ authors and I'll be happy to make these changes. To your point about "neutrality", I've declared my POV for this candidate, but I'd have to call a foul on your comments. I Googled "Tom Reedy Shakespeare" and after an hour or so following links found literally volumes of Tom Reedy comment all opposing the questioning of Shakespeare's authorship. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to work to improve this article and welcome specific suggestions or edits to this end.RalphWinwood (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2016 (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.