Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eton College controversies (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. After a few relists, views are still split between keep, delete and merge / redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eton College controversies

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This page contains mainly tabloid newspaper stories of sensationalism, the content is not that used by an encyclopedia and is not noteworthy. The institution is centuries old but the article contains several stories (mainly in recent decades) and does not constitute an article page on an encyclopedia. If allowed then it opens it up for multiple other articles listing pupil achievements, staff achievements, school stories etc.) Racingmanager (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expected to be disappointed that it was all recentism and didn't mention Oscar Browning or Richard Langley, and I was right. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, Uncle G, and shouldn’t we have an up-to-date spin on the little matter of Nicholas Udall? Moonraker (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These controversies are of encyclopaedic interest because many of them are type-specimens of the long-running debate in the UK of unfair privilege and its preservation through a system of education that is alleged to have extreme social bias. Some go to the integrity of the exam system, and its ability to deal robustly with pressure to make the rich pass. These are subjects of huge interest across UK society. It would normally be unfair to give great weight to them in connection with a single school, but if you went out and asked people in the street to name a posh public school, Eton would be on everyone's tongue. Eton is quite robust enough to stand up next to its reputation, and the article can be made neutral while still handling these socially difficult questions. The individual controversies were subject of national press coverage and are properly sourced. This article is a completely different kettle of fish to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abingdon School controversies, and should not be read in the same light. Elemimele (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that all of the "controversies" seem to be linked to trivial news stories that don't really analyze the subject in any meaningful, in-depth way. It's not like the broader topic can't be a summarized subtopic in the Eton College article either if there's anything notable about it. In the meantime, maybe some could argue the subject of "the long-running debate in the UK of unfair privilege" is notable enough to justify an article about it, but that doesn't mean every specific minor incident of privilege in the United Kingdom school system deserve ones. Let alone that every school in the United kingdom (32,163 btw) deserves to have it's own "controversies" article, which would happen if it's really a systemic issue in the school system and we allow for each school to have it's own fork article about the problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a page about controversies in any old school. Eton College occupies an extremely prominent place in the culture and history of the UK. It is without doubt the most famous school of its type anywhere in the world. The controversies are notable and the parent article is too big to accommodate them. Nangaf (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are asserting the contrary to Elemimele's argument, that these are not type-specimens but are specific to this school? Both arguments for keeping, neither really based in Project:deletion policy, cannot be true as they are mutually contradictory. Fame and importance were soundly rejected as inclusion/exclusion criteria in 2004. What is relevant is the provenances, depths, and relevance of sources. Where is any argument, in this whole discussion, that "controversies" is a way that good sources address the subject of this school? Because "its a grab-bag collection of recentist news coverage entirely removed from the main article" is not that argument, and that's pretty much what we have as valid source-based argument so far. One would think that if this school's "controversies" truly were notable, at least one editor would be able to pull out and point to one of the several history books for this school that has a "controversies" chapter or something. Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Books aren't the only sources acceptable in WP. When I do a simple Google search for "Controversies at Eton school" my top hits (amongst many, many pages) are The Guardian [1], a national newspaper of enormous prominence and high reliability, this being an in-depth article by the Guardian's staff education writer on how the dismissal of a particular teacher reflects the influence of Woke society on the school, and the current aims of its head; an article from der Spiegel [2], an extremely influential and important German publication, entitled "How Eton College perpetuates problems in the UK", followed unfortunately by something from the Daily Mail along the same lines, and then the Times newspaper, with an in-depth discussion of the role of controversy in education, particularly in relation to the sacking of an Eton teacher [3]. These would probably be enough to render just that one controversy "notable", but similar coverage is available on many of the other controversies too. It really doesn't need some historian to discuss the issue in a book; a huge selection of (quite serious) newspaper journalists the world over have already made the point. In fact, it's unlikely a book would be financially viable unless it adopted a fairly dramatic viewpoint or had some sort of sponsoring. Now let's look at Eton: no, notability isn't inherited. But before we stick too firmly to rules, let's think about our readers. Don't they have a legitimate interest in a school that has given them 20 of their prime ministers? Don't they have a legitimate interest in questions raised by legitimate journalists about whether the education those 20 people received explains tensions in society today, and the role of in-born privilege in allocation of power? And anyway, haven't encyclopaedias always taken an interest, on behalf of their readers, in school scandals? Why else do the public have a ghoulish interest in cane-wielding tyrants of the past? This article is encyclopaedic at so many levels I don't really know where to start. Given that its subject matter matches what an encyclopaedia reader expects to find, and that it's supported by the highest possible standard of journalistic sources, to delete it based on the lack of a book source would be extraordinarily weird. Elemimele (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, when I do the Google search you mention I do not get The Guardian articles until after quite a bit of scrolling. This is probably a function of location, location, location. (I'm in the US) This search: ""Eton College controversies" -wikipedia" gives all of 7 results, none from the Guardian. (I do have access to the Guardian and there is indeed a lot about Eton, but not all of it is encyclopedic, IMO.) That tells me that this title isn't helpful, and I do wonder why this can't be reduced in size and merged to the Eton College article. There are few sections here that seem actual controversies ( Farm subsidies? an unconfirmed rumor about Tallulah Bankhead in 1928? - which is not much about Eton and more about Ms. Bankhead). The significant ones could be added to the Eton College article which is where one would logically find it. Thus Merge, after considerable reduction, to Eton College. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - And on the same note, to clarify: in saying that Eton is a "Type specimen", I am indeed saying that this isn't just any school as per Nangaf. And fame may not be sufficient to confer notability, but fame does get things written about independently by widely-read sources, and that's a major requirement for a WP article. I would, however, endorse a similar article about a school that was not famous or a type-specimen if, through its activities, it achieved a similar level of press coverage. Elemimele (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect All of the coverage seems to be rather trivial news coverage of the kind that usually doesn't go in an encyclopedia, and there is not anything presented to support a broader analysis of the subject this article purports to be about. Collating different and mostly unrelated news stories together to make an article on some topic is a violation of both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTH (since whatever the connection between these events is, if there are no sources commenting on it, it is essentially something that came out of the head of some Wikipedian or another). The article as it stands is really a "list of Eton College controversies", and per this lack of sources making a connection about the topic, fails WP:LISTN, and it is full of lots of INDISCRIMINATE details which are of very little interest to most persons. It should not be merged to the target, because then it would leave it open to the same kind of NOTNEWS issues (on top of not solving the existing ones). If there is something pertinent to be said about the controversies at Eton, that should be first covered in the main article, in a proper encyclopedic manner (which would require, very probably, starting essentially from scratch. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eton College: Per Lamona and RandomCanadian. If there is a proper article to be had on this topic, it would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway. 15 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is well-referenced information on a notable subject, and we have sub-pages like this — Eton College Chapel, Eton College Collections, Eton Boating Song, and so on — because merging them into Eton College would make that page too big. On the other hand, delete the page and the neutrality of the overall coverage is gone. Moonraker (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Adamant1. GorgonaJS (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2022 (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.