Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret order of marlowe

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret order of marlowe

This article is a highbrow, but fairly transparent, hoax. Aside from the wildly unverifiable nature of the claims, we have the misuse of the word 'antecedent' and the fact that 'little about the purpose of the group is known'. The spelling of 'accompany' as 'accompanie' cited in an alleged early 19th-century document would have been staggeringly dated by that stage, too. Total WP:BOLLOCKS. AlexTiefling 15:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Article creation was that user's only edit. AlexTiefling 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Today's featured "Little is known about..." article. NawlinWiki 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NN, WP:V, and WP:OR. Scorpiondollprincess 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It exists. I am Grand High Todger of the Lodge, and I know the secret handshakes and everything (abi in malem rem, Guillame!). The purpose of the society (although I probably shouldn't be saying so) is to abolish the teachings of that objectionable git, Shakespeare and reinstate Christopher Marlowe to his rightful place as the Pinnacle of English Literature...um, but on second thoughts perhaps having an article on Wikipedia will bring the group's existence to the attention of those awful lit crit postmodernist sorts. Yes, I think a delete is in order. A very strong delete. Byrgenwulf 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:HOAX, WP:OR, WP:V... usually if an article contains the phrase [l]ittle is known about..., it's a bad sign. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V at minimum. There's also the fact that, if in fact they do exist, and you could verify it, nobody would care, so non-notable. Fan-1967 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't it clear by now from the evidence in the Voynich Manuscript that Christopher Marlowe actually wrote the Shakespeare plays himself? — Smerdis of Tlön 18:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh...you're not meant to tell them we've decoded that yet! _(Sorry!) Byrgenwulf 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Marlowe only wrote the comedies, Oxford wrote the tragedies, and Bacon wrote the sonnets. (Though I always liked the rather less-supported theory that Elizabeth wrote them.) Fan-1967 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I love the idea of the "illegitimate antecedent", though. BigHaz 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LOL @ Today's featured "Little is known about..." article — NM Chico24 04:23, 6 August 2006 (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.