Deletion of Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian (2nd nomination)

Comment: as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: The article Chronology of Shakespeare's plays is devoted to what is known about the chronology, according to reliable sources. Any suitably sourced information should be in that article, and there is no need to have a parallel article () giving the situation according to a fringe theory. There is no "Oxfordian" scholarly tradition—the term simply refers to a vague grouping of people who maintain that Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare: a variety of reasoning is used, with a variety of differing conclusions, so no source can satisfactorily define an "Oxfordian chronology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion and failed. Since that time the article has been improved even more, with some 60 edits, the majority of which were made to support the mainstream position such as this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronology_of_Shakespeare%27s_plays_–_Oxfordian&diff=374944998&oldid=361386199, and this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronology_of_Shakespeare%27s_plays_–_Oxfordian&diff=356627189&oldid=356618439 that added more mainstream RS references. Even this minor edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronology_of_Shakespeare%27s_plays_–_Oxfordian&diff=356365076&oldid=356350133 is an example of editing to address NPOV. As a result of these and scores of other edits,  has been even further addressed, as has  (compare with Chronology of Shakespeare's plays and List of Shakespeare authorship candidates in regards to identical synth issues). The article is far stronger and more in line with policies and guidelines than when it faced, and survived, its first AFD. It should be kept, and improved even further
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE||WP:SYNTH)