Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakespeare authorship doubters

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Reasonable Doubt (neé Shakespeare authorship doubters)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic as it stands "people who do not think that the actor from Stratford wrote the plays that we commonly ascribe to Shakespeare" is (a) not notable and (b) so vague as to be meaningless, (c) mostly pure OR. It is massively significant that certain serious scholars in the field believe that someone else wrote the things. It is of little relevance that Paul H. Nitze (a US defence expert) believes the same. The article (list) just contains a mishmash of names, some added with quite dubious sourcing, some of no relevance whatever to the field (I see a couple of Supreme court judges in there who appear on the basis of their having commented on one of the popular books on the subject). Most of these are OR, sources having been combed to find out if they have ever been asked for an opinion at a cocktail party. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Striking nom - renamed and rewritten article is notable, sourced and encyclopaedic (thank you Uncle G).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note the article has been repurposed to be about the Declaration. I have said that I thought this was a notable topic in its own right, and the list of persons named in the declaration is acceptable. I would not like to see an indiscriminate list of signatories added to the article, but as it stands I have no objection to its retention. If Nishdani wishes to rewrite the articles he lists below to repoint to it rather than rehash it, I assume there would be no problem with that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change to a list. This article originated as part of Shakespeare authorship question and is a subarticle of that article (why o why does Wikipedia insist on not using subarticles?!?). It should actually have been created as a list (and possibly a number of people can be removed from it). But as part of that top-level article, it should be kept in principle, if transformed to a proper list. -- BenTels (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure in this case a subarticle would have helped. I would agree with your list proposition only if a proper specification could be drawn up - notable people who have some claim to academic credibility in the area who think some other chap wrote Shakespeare's plays, perhaps sorted by who exactly they think did write the things, might be just about OK - particularly if the individual's own article covers that they have gone on record with this opinion (ie that it's not WP:UNDUE, which it almost certainly is with the judges and the defence expert). As it is, it just reads like one of those lists of famous people who believe Jesus rose from the dead that some churches find value in putting about - possibly useful if you are trying to make converts, but not suitable for an encyclopaedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea that you are referring to is what the Institute for Propaganda Analysis called Testimonial. "Famous person believes X, so X must be true.". Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quite. I believe this is the aim here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ The bulk of this article is a list of celebrities that have no reason to have any expert or informed opinion on the origin of Shakespear plays. That said, the 'Declaration of reasonable doubt' sounds like a document that warrants some form of inclusion in wikipedia. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Keep after the modifications described below Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs with an article on that - I think it created quite a stir at the time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't take the exercise of the administrators' deletion tool to get to there from here. With one use of the rename tool, to rename this page to Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, and one use of the editing tool, to take out the introduction (redundant to the purported parent article in any case) and the famous-people-who-believed-X list of "Skeptics through history", you could end up with a stub article on that very thing. No administrator privileges required. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt is on numerous pages already. No one contests that notice of this is important. What is contested is the proliferation of essentially the same blob of material on several pages, with minor adjustments, in what looks like advocacy abuse.
    - (a)List_of_Oxfordian_theory_supporters
    - (b)Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Notable_anti-Stratfordians
    - On all competing Shakespeare Authorship Question pages it is given due mention.
    - (c) Shakespeare_authorship_question#Authorship_doubters
    - (d) Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/sandbox_draft
    - (e) Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/sandbox_draft2
    - (f) Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/sandbox_3
    - These are just a few I recall. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - a list of every time someone gives an interview and says "I don't think Willie wrote them there plays" is trivia and Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. One of the many articles on the subject of Shakespearian authorship can easily accommodate an appropriately sourced section on the significant players in the debate. I'm sure at least one of the ones noted above already does. A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the repurposing of the article to be about the Declaration rather than a simple list of doubters, it now meets the standards for inclusion. I strongly suggest that the article be monitored to keep it from degenerating into a list of everyone who signs the declaration, which would veer this back into trivia. A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Shakespeare authorship question seems to be under some kind of renovation. A list of prominent doubters will have a place somewhere, as part of that article or as a list. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot for one moment imaging merging this list with that article. Do you want to draw up some criteria for 'prominent doubters' and cut this list down to that? If not, I would have thought that starting again would be better, as this list is so full of dubious entries.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, not notable. This is an argument, in the form of a list of testimonials, aiming to show that the "doubts" "must be true", as Elen and Uncle G point out above. An argument is suitable (on a good day) on a talkpage, but never as an article. What this text argues for is User:Smatprt's passionate support of the fringe authorship theory known as the "Oxfordian" theory. Together with Shakespeare authorship question and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and perhaps others I haven't noticed (oh, hey, I just realised there is in fact a List of Oxfordian theory supporters, who'd have thought it?), these articles are jealously guarded by Smatprt. See this ANI thread for what happens if somebody who doesn't share Smatprt's fringe views tries to edit "his" Shakespeare articles for balance, or even merely copyedit them or provide more professional references. Speaking for myself, I'd delete the lot of them—not because of the "owner's" behaviour, as such, of course—but because of their resultant poor quality and inherently POV topics. Bishonen | talk 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nominator. A list of scholars in the field who held this fringe view would be notable. This is just a hodgepodge of trivia. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Changing to Keep based on repurposing of the article. The new subject appears to be notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The declaration is quite notable as we see from the international coverage by the BBC, NYT and other major media. It is the work of moments to find substantial sources which list more doubters such as The anti-Stratfordians. Compilation of such sources is not OR but commendable diligence. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing and not a reason to delete, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just pointing out that the article has changed substantially since listing, it now focuses on the Declaration and the list of random celebrities has been removed. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This "Declaration", as noted above by Colonel Warden, has been reviewed in countless major news media, including [1] (and gets over 20,000 Google hits). It therefore meets notability, like any such document or publication. The notable signatories (and the number of them) also create an added notability. It is therefore notable enough for an article on its own. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the original article was about something else entirely. Uncle G has rewritten it to be about the Declaration, which is undoubtedly notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current version. Notable and sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 13 October 2010 (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.