Talk:Chipping Norton set

DYK nomination

What is there to know ? Not much Hmcst1 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is conjecture dressed up as fact

This is all very vague stuff dressed up as fact. It refers to a group with members and core members and notable gatherings but that isnt really true at all. Whether the Chipping Norton Set is a clearly defined group is a matter for debate not fact. Furthermore core members implies an inner circle when there is no such thing. It's true that certain sections of the press have noted the area is popular with powerful media types and conjectured from that but there just isn't an organization calling itself the Chipping Norton Set . The Chipping Norton Set is merely an imagination of the media. When is a group not a group ? Hmcst1 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC) I also suggest this article is not consistent with wikipedia content policy WP:FRINGE and WP:DNCH Hmcst1 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - lots of statements about living people, and it's primarily sourced to the WP:DAILYMAIL, a deprecated source that's just unusable for BLP statements. I removed the DM cites, I removed all uncited claims, and the summer party was only cited to the DM. I also removed several claims that were not actually about the "Chipping Norton set". Under WP:BLP, none of these claims should be restored without solid RSes for each individual claim - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The high quality sources speak for themselves, Telegraph, Guardian, New Statesman etc. Articles on the brief travails of the beau monde are always required reading for social historians, and indeed, this shall be so. A belief that the DM prints only fiction is highly eccentric. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)