Deletion of Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays

Comment: As good a place as any to begin reorganizing this Wikipedia:Walled garden|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: Worrying amounts of apparent |original research and |unverified material. Inherently POV, which is magnified by the tone and content of the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V)

Comment: The argument that Oxfordians generate a "significant" or at least a large body of writings hardly ddresses whether something is . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: You are mistaken. Please look at , #OR and SOAPBOX. The key policy that applies here is . The article gives excessive weight to a marginal position and fails to give due weight to criticism of the claims or to contrary evidence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOT||WP:NOTSOAPBOX||WP:WEIGHT)