Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian

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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian

Everything in this article is derived from one source, Charlton Ogburn. As such, it violates the NPOV policy. It also misrepresents this chronology as having wider support than it does. The sheer existence of this article is a violation of the undue weight clause, as no sources at all have been provided to show that there is any acceptance of this particular chronology beyond that of its author. Chick Bowen 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure that this deserves deletion. The article has Ogburn sources as well as a lot of non-Ogburn external links. I'm pretty sure an even wider array of sources could be provided as well. Wrad (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's the question. The question is whether the sources establish that this particular chronology is significant enough to be one of only two (the other one being that of mainstream Shakespeare scholarship) presented. This is basically a fringe theory by an amateur. Chick Bowen 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there are two questions here, obviously. One about sources and one about Due Weight. Wrad (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A pretty problem here. This is pretty much a WP:SS fork from Oxfordian theory and exists in its context and in support of it. I agree there's some WP:POV issue when taken on its own, but taken with its parent, less of one. Except that Oxfordian theory is already long, I'd suggest merging into it, rather than deletion. Failing that, edit the discussion to make clear how much of a minority opinion this is. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's about my feeling. There's a sizeable group that regularly edits the Oxfordian article. I'm hoping to see their thoughts soon. Wrad (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree and feel the article should stay, but with some changes, as suggested. I have added numerous references and reworked the article, including making it quite clear that it is a minority viewpoint that most scholars reject, and that it is part of a series on the issue. I think I've addressed the comments and certainly welcome input or collaboration. Smatprt (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. An appropriate clear presentation of this material. Notable nonsense is notable, and this is extensive enough to need a separate article for clarity.DGG (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJL (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.