Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Spring I


 * 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 delete. Hoax (see others) seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Spring I

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Hoax. Not properly referenced. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as hoax, per Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage  Phoe  talk  15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Spring family. Thomas is verifiable in Burke's, but probably not independently notable. Choess (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as possible hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. There may (as Choess suggests) be elements of truth in this article, but an article created by a demonstrable hoaxer is no place to start building a coherent and reliable article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 11 March 2009 (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.