Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring family

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 | talk | contribs 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spring family

No evidence of notability. Not supported by WP:V or WP:RS. Article created by editor who clearly falsified sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. There may 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. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per first reference cited. Come back when you've made a phone call:

“

The family originate from the area around Lavenham, where they were seated from very ancient times as Lords of the Manor of Lavenham, well before the Norman invasion of 1066.

”

-- Ottre 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, without prejudice to recreation. I had just started to nominate this article for AFD when I opened up a copy in another browser tab and saw that this nomination had just been opened.

Per the nominator, there may be elements of truth in this article, but the only two points referenced by inline citations are to unreliable sources: the user-generated website rootsweb.com, and the suffolkchurches website; neither of those is a scholarly source. The book cited is an old one, and the only evidence that it actually exists is the claim of the article's creator, who has demonstrably falsified other sources.

The link to an Amazon listing of a pamphlet entitled "Lavenham Suffolk" proves nothing other that Lavenham Suffolk exists according to someone of unknown reputation who wrote a pamphlet. There are plenty of other sources to demonstrate the existence of Lavenham, but "pamphlet exists" is not enough to support this article.

Per evidence in related AFDs, I accept that the kernel of this article is probably true: that there was a wealthy family in Lavenham called "Spring". But all the detail is mixture of fantasy, conjecture and unproven assertion. For example, the article claims lists the contemporary Richard Spring MP as a "notable spring", but where's the evidence for any connection? It also lists Dick Spring, the former Tanaiste of Ireland, but offers no evidence of any connection other than a shared name.

East Anglia's wealthy medieval wool merchants were a hugely significant force in English history, and thoroughly deserve coverage in wikipedia. But that's no reason to accept this work of a hoaxer as a staring point: much better to delete and allow someone else to sytart again with reliable sources.

Ottre's call for a "procedural close" is groundless. I see nothing in any relevant guidelines about a phone call being relevant to an AFD, and plenty to suggest that a phonecall is an unreliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. We can't afford to take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No evidence the book "The Springs of Lavenham" exists? Try Google book search, which shows it is in many college libraries. That does not show that it is more than, perhaps, a privately printed genealogy of uncertain accuracy. Is publisher "W. E. Harrison" a vanity press or a major publishing house with a reputation for scholarly imprints? I have seen private genealogies full of doubtful claims of notable ancestors in the holdings of research libraries. Edison (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just too riddled with falsehood. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (a much more scholarly source than "The Springs of Lavenham") has an entry for this family, and a very few facts do match, but most of the WP article appears to be complete fabrication. The bit about being Lords of the Manor pre-1066, for example, a pretty major thing if true, is not mentioned in the ONDB at all, nor is anything else in the WP article from the 1550s onwards.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I too have DNB access, and having just checked the "Spring family" article at www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/55402?docPos=1, I can confirm Chris's assessment. (Should have checked DNB myself). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 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.