The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply
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
* 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
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply
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
* 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