Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Spring III


 * 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. Hoax (as others) seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Spring III

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

Lacks multiple reliable sources. Not notable. Probable hoax. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment We have a bunch of articles on the Springs being proposed for deletion, to wit:
 * Thomas Spring II
 * Thomas Spring III
 * Sir John Spring
 * Sir William Spring I
 * Thomas Spring I
 * Sir William Spring II
 * William Spring, 1st Baron Lavenham
 * William Spring, 2nd Baron Lavenham
 * Robert Spring, 3rd Baron Lavenham
 * Henry Spring, 7th Baron Lavenham
 * Bidenly Hall
 * Basil Spring, 8th Baron Lavenham
 * Michael Spring, 9th Baron Lavenham
 * Thomas Spring, 10th Baron Lavenham
 * Anthony Spring, 11th Baron Lavenham
 * In every reason given for deletion, and in some cases the only reason, is hoax. I believe it is extremely important to remove this as a rationale - sources have been found that clearly indicate the existence of these people. Should the articles be deleted, any attempt to recreate them would be candidates for speedy, citing these discussions, which would be incorrect. Also, some of the rationales indicate "not enough" reliable sources. How many are enough? Again, for the most part, these articles are referenced, though some of them only have one.
 * Please understand, I am not advocating that all these articles be kept, but I believe it imperative that if they are deleted, they are deleted for the right reasons. Sorry about the soapboxing....
 * Please understand, I am not advocating that all these articles be kept, but I believe it imperative that if they are deleted, they are deleted for the right reasons. Sorry about the soapboxing....

Vulture19 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Spring family. Thomas' existence is verifiable in Burke's, but when you cut away the puffery, I don't think there's really enough to warrant a separate article. Choess (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" ... but the evidence presented by this creator of these articles repeatedly falls apart when examined. For example, many of the articles cite "the genealogy of the people of Lavenham, Suffolk"; no publication date or place, no publisher, no author, no weblink, absolutely nothing to verify that this work even exists, let alone that it is a reliable source. I am very concerned that Vulture19 is trying to invert the burden of proof set out clearly in a core policy, by asking that editors ignore the fact that the creator of these articles and supplier of references is a demonstrable hoaxer. It may well be that any attempt to recreate these articles will meet with speedy deletion, but the speedy can be challenged, and may be successfully challenged if an editor without a track record of massive hoaxing can demonstrate that there are reliable sources to support both the central claims in the article and the assertion of notability. But to suggest that we retain large swathes of he work of a hoaxer just because other sources confirm the mere existence of the people (though not their notability or the details of their lives), well that's driving a coach-and-horses through WP:V. Merger (as suggested by Choess) retains the edit history of this article in a form restorable by any editor. Why would we want to retain the work of a hoaxer, in an obscure area of the encyclopedia which may not be on sufficient watchlists for a restoration of the hoax to be promptly detected? If we actually mean WP:V, the only responsible thing to do is to delete this whole edifice and allow recreation of any genuinely verifiable individual components at a future date if supported by reliable sources supllied by an editor who isn't a hoaxer. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 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. Vulture19 suggests that there is evidence for the existence  of these people -- but the problem is that nearly every case, other central elements of the articles are demonstrably false. We have, for example, an article on Baron Lavenham and on 8 alleged holders of that title, when that title exists in none of the standard reference books. in Sir William Spring II, we have a claim that the subject was the father of a man only three years younger than himself.  What more evidence do we need that the creator of these articles is unable or unwilling to hold to the standards of reliability that we require?


 * 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.