Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William 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 | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Spring I

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless there is more information that this is a hoax, disagree. Information is verified by at least this. Vulture19 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't see that the whole line was being considered. Need to compare sources to articles.Vulture19 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Vulture has cited is imaged on Google Books, which seem to call into doubt Kitty's accusations of a hoax. Still, what did Bill Spring (or any of the others) do that was notable? Even the royalty-fans don't insist on inherent notability for inherited nobility. Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. A gBooks search on "William Spring" yields a whole lot of information that I just don't have time to digest or write into the article right now. The problem is that there are a few different "William Springs" from the same lineage. Is it possible that the entire discussion be consolidated to a single discussion? Vulture19 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, what appears to have happened here is that someone's conjoined the (verifiable, true) information regarding the Spring family pre-1641 with an imagined title of "Baron Lavenham". So there is a hoax, but the articles on earlier members of the family do appear to be accurate. Choess (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"William Spring" Lavenham is a bit more salient to the discussion. The same search on gScholar.Vulture19 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for genuine higher nobility, I think precedent is we do include every holder of the title, for, at least until very recently, they do play significant roles (and English barons used to be always in Parliament.) Not inherited then applies to children without the title & , probably spouses. For baronets, like these, and equivalent lower nobility elsewhere, we do not include unless individually notable for something. DGG (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not peers or nobility. Possibly Lords of the Manor. I have no problem with Spring Baronets and (proven) MPs. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spring family. He's verifiable in Burke's, but probably not independently notable. Choess (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as possible hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia: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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 11 March 2009 (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.