Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Roper-Curzon


 * 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. The "keep" arguments are weak, mostly hand-waving instead of indicating relevant reliable sources - and where they attempt to do so, as in the case of the "Telegraph" articles, it is not at all clear that these sources are about the subject of this article. Which is the point made in the nomination. So we do have a WP:V failure for anything called the "House of Roper-Curzon". Also, for some reason, all "delete" opinions are by experienced editors, while the "keep" opinions are mostly ... very much not.  Sandstein  18:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

House of Roper-Curzon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not even sure that house of Roper-Curzon is a meaningful term, any more than any two families some of whom married each other.

This is an inferior somewhat legendary duplication of the article Curzon family.

As examples of the misstatements, it is not the case that someone in the family  was a King of England. Some members of the family were in some degree related to someone in the royal family, like tens or hundreds of thousands of other people. the Queen of Scots was neither a Roper nor a Curzon.

Nor is it the case that "The Curzon family owned the Kedleston estate since the 12th century." Rather, Henry de Ferrers owned the estate in the 12th century. A Curzon was one of his tenants.

I don't know how to disentangle it. This is not only OR and SYNTHESIS, but low quality OR and Synthesis.  DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article seems to be well-written and with more than enough relevant sources to warrant its place here. Would it be better to perhaps delete the conflicting points without removing the entire article? Gimme2ofthose (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Gimme2ofthose (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The deletion isn't necessary, editing can be performed to refine the article and there is a a ton of references that satisfy the notability criteria. No need for deletion! The article has enough proof to have it’s own page. Writer just needs to remove a few typos.I wouldn’t delete it, the house of RC have so much references that all it needs is to be polished a bit. A ton of references to support page, no need to delete page!Books and links back up house of ropercurzon history, no need for page removal. Just edit the misinformation part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Hadjinedelchev (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)  — Alexander Hadjinedelchev (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. It's unclear what the article is meant to be about. The article explains that the surname "Roper-Curzon" came into existence in 1788. But most of the article is about people who lived before then, and were in no way members of a "House of Roper-Curzon". Maproom (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Question, you say this article is an inferior duplication of another article, Curzon family. However, I can't find Curzon family.  There's a Category:Curzon family, is that what you are talking about? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was probably looking at Viscount Scarsdale or at Kedlestone Hall .  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This one is such a mess of WP:SYNTH that WP:TNT may be called for. I literally can't find a single non-wiki source for the term "House of Roper-Curzon" as such, and there are significant factual errors on the page itself, such as the list of titles many of which were never held by a Roper-Curzon. Much of the rest is genealogical miscellany not particularly relevant to the Roper-Curzon family itself. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Multiple references to the Roper-Curzon family exist, even though sources used throughout the article may need to be vetted to only include relevant ones. There are more than just enough to justify the existence of the page: The Daily Telegraph for example. The page may be renamed however to Roper-Curzon family to reflect how the subject gets mentioned in the press." Telegraph article 1, Telegraph article 2. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell (it's difficult, because both those articles mostly vanish behind a paywall after a few seconds), neither article even mentions "House of Roper-Curzon". Maproom (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject is referred to as “Roper-Curzon family” instead and the article needs to be renamed. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Roper-Curzon has been the surname of the holders of the title of Baron Teynham for a number of generations - I am not clear exactly how many (sometimes the family surnames title holders of hereditary English titles change.) Lots of sources on the family exist.  Stuff like this: "Beach proposal for peer's fifth daughter.  Tim Walker. Edited by Laura Roberts. The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) [London (UK)]17 Feb 2009: 6.  "With 10 children, five of whom are daughters, Lord Teynham has oft referred to himself as a modern-day Mr Bennet. But the peer can breathe a sigh of relief as his fifth daughter, Alice Roper-Curzon, announces her engagement to Charles Dudbridge Mandrake. Lord Teynham, 80, says he never feared his girls would remain unmarried. "I never worried they would be left on the peg. They are all very beautiful." Alice, 25, tells me Charles, 32, "proposed on the beach just over a week ago"."   A couple of the Barons with this surname are bluelinked.  The contemporary sculptor, David Roper-Curzon may be able to support an article.IceFishing (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, those people exist. No-one is doubting that. What you need to establish, if the article is to be retained, is that the "House of Roper-Curzon" has received significant discussion in reliable independent sources. I still no evidence at all of that. Maproom (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. "House of" is someone's erroneous title.  Ditch  the "house of" nonsense, then simple KEEP and Move this notable British family to  Roper-Curzon family.   Improvements to the article would also be nice, but notability of the family is beyond doubt.IceFishing (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete cant find anything to justify a standalone article on Wikipedia. - FitIndia  Talk Commons 09:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Shashanksinghvi334 and the 2 Telegraph articles Sachi Mohanty (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a pretty well cited informative article and doesn't look like a hoax. Used by some sources like The Telegraph as mentioned above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Roper-Curzon family: I agree with Shashanksinghvi334, the article needs to moved to Roper-Curzon family. There are enough sources for a standalone article. Ireneshih (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete sources provided above by Shashanksinghvi334 and those in the article are insufficient to establish notability and a GNews search for "House of Roper-Curzon" and "Roper-Curzon family" yield nothing better. There's no evidence of notability here, and the "keep" !votes are not policy-based and should be discounted. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.