- 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 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir John Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable. Not properly referenced. Probable hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Spring family. He's verifiable in Burke's, but probably not independently notable. Choess (talk) 03:13, 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) 12:54, 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.