Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education of the British Royal Family

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 speedy keep. This falls under "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to game the system), when dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course." Nominator wanted page protection due to edit war following DYK appearance, and when that didn't happen and someone said it should be deleted, they responded ~~"let's test that"~~ [Edit: "If you believe the page should be deleted, we should resolve that question immediately."] Fences&Windows 23:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Education of the British Royal Family

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

This is a procedural RfD as per a suggestion for deletion advanced after a long community discussion at WP:RPP and is advanced on behalf of a communal segment supporting deletion and not the nominator per se. LavaBaron (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created the article, but must now reluctantly AfD it. The article is being repeatedly, thoroughly, whitewashed through multiple and repeated blankings [1] of large sections of sourced text, in some cases invoking the argument that "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [2]. The article has attracted a large influx of editors with various userboxes indicating fandom of this celebrity family who appear intent on obliterating sourced content without discussion, even overriding active RfCs in the process. As this situation can't be remedied, WP:PROMOTIONAL demands the article be deleted; we can't host vanity articles on WP and this article only has the potential to become a vanity article. LavaBaron (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will you stop wasting everyone's time with vague RfCs and now an AfD? It's obviously a notable subject on which there's unquestionably scholarship [3][4]. Just because you've been unable to maintain it as the hatchet job you meant it to be isn't a reason to delete. E Eng 07:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EE, I'm sorry you feel that way, however, articles can be deleted for reasons other than GNG as per WP:DEL-REASON. This article should be properly deleted under criterion 3 which covers "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content." The repeated blankings and trimming of the article by this celebrity's highly devoted fans have rendered it an article without encyclopedic content and it should be deleted. Thanks for your kind words. My very best to you - LavaBaron (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My words aren't kind. I wish I could say I'm sure you know that your reasoning is nonsense, but instead I must say it's quite possible you actually believe it. You're wasting everyone's time because you're unable to control the article. Now please do you have the last word -- I'm unwatching since the outcome here is a foregone conclusion. E Eng 08:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite directly telling me you are being un-WP:CIVIL, I'm going to AGF that was a typo and you meant to say "you're a good-looking guy, LavaBaron" but your fingers slipped on the keyboard. My warmest and most congenial regards to you, EE, and sincerest wishes for your prosperity and good fortune - LavaBaron (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to unwatch. I'm not telling you I'm not being civil -- I'm telling you I'm not being kind i.e. not smilingly saying how helpful your activities are, when they're not. Nonetheless as a matter of general principle it won't distress me if prosperity and good fortune stumble your way. E Eng 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because I don't think the article has the potential to be anything other than what it is right now. Also, where does it stop? Marriages of the British Royal Family, Pregnancies of the British Royal Family, Deaths of the British Royal Family – like education these have all been covered at length in reliable sources, but at this point you are merely creating a database of things already mentioned in the royal biographies, which is one of the things Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Firebrace (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firebrace - you mean like Finances of the British Royal Family, List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family, Military service by the members of the British Royal Family, Genealogy of the British Royal Family, Cadency labels of the British royal family, List of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family, List of honours of the British Royal Family by country, etc.? LavaBaron (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would get rid of most of those articles, yes. Firebrace (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are sources that discuss the education of individual members of the family, the "education of the royal family" as a whole is not really a topic that is covered by itself in reliable sources and so the article is largely synthesis. The article also gives a false impression because before the Second World War, people typically left school at 14 and if you go just a few decades further back many, many people did not go to school at all or had education so rudimentary that today it would be considered shameful. On that basis, the education of the family then was considerably better when comparing private tuition to what was available to everyone else. The article however is deliberately skewed to try to present the education of the family as lacking, and so it is also POV, not neutral and unrepresentative of reality. At worst, the education they received is not noticeably different from that of any suitably comparable group at the time. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)— Celia Homeford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- That is simply a lie. I've only made two edits to the article, one of which was to correct a typo. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC) -- Celia seems to have started editing 8 days ago and has mostly edited similar topics. The {{spa}} tag is appropriate in such circumstances though we should, of course, allow that her interest in the matter may be genuine and legitimate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC) The tag is obviously an attempt to discredit an opponent and it is simply disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

start indenting The user Celia Homeford protests at the use of the {{spa}} tag. This account started editing on 13 April, 8 days ago. On 18 April, they made an edit with the summary "style guide has been stable for years". They should please explain how it is that a new account has such familiarity with past years. Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I simply clicked on the links given in the old paragraph about the style guide and saw that the discussion was years old and then examined the history of the style guide and saw that it had not been edited for years. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Celia's reasoning... You're right that the article tries hard to cast the royal family in a poor light. But that's not a reason to delete the article, but rather a reason to fix it. There are at least two serious major works specifically on the topic -- see my earlier post (and likely journal articles as well, but trying searching British royal family education -- you're inundated reports by royal commissions on education policy and so on) so notability as a standalone topic is clear. E Eng 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable as there's an entire book about it: Royal Education: Past, Present, and Future. The poor quality of the first draft is not a reason to delete per our editing policy. As the nominator created the article, the nomination seems to be a case of WP:POINT. Andrew D. (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A case in POINT, you might say. E Eng 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be some content dispute between editors, but the topic is notable. See, e.g., Andrzej Olechnowicz, The Monarchy and the British Nation, 1780 to the Present (Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 19: "Historians have also assessed how well royal education has prepared monarchs for their political and ceremonial role. ..." There is also another whole book on the subject (in addition to that referenced above): Aysha Pollnitz, Princely Education in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2015). Neutrality^talk 15:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great source Neutrality. I'm adding it now. I also sourced and added a peer-reviewed journal article earlier (I think the fanboys deleted that, too, because it was less than celebratory and "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [5]. LavaBaron (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic seems sufficiently notable. Article probably needs some serious rewriting though, "Assessment" section looks especially dubious at first glance.--Staberinde (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are more than enough reliable sources to make the topic notable. Its handling could definitely be improved, but since AfD is not for cleanup, the article's current state need not concern us here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as others have said, the article is far from perfect. Editors are having difficulty achieving consensus about what it should contain, and which sources are reliable. However the topic is notable enough for an article and it's been much improved over the course of today. We shouldn't delete what could be a good article just because it's proving somewhat controversial amongst a few editors. Neiltonks (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After repeatedly being told I'm a partisan liar and attempting to destroy the Royal Family and we need to delete any unflattering information from the article because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [6], it's nice to get this validation that my article is a good one. Thanks,Neiltonks. LavaBaron (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neiltonks said it "could be a good article", not that it is one. Also note Philafrenzy's comment that the article "Has a lot of problems." It needs work. Parkwells (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A most charitable way of putting it, to be sure. And to the extent it's what LavaBaron calls "his" article, here's what it looked like when he created it -- warning, prepare yourself before clicking! -- [7]. E Eng 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a lot of problems but clearly is a notable topic. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above, a topic that rather a lot of ink has been spent on over the years by historians and biographers, and inherently notable and interesting (both from monarchist and republican perspectives). Smurrayinchester 11:05, 22 April 2016 (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.