Deletion of Richard of Flanders

Comment: As dubious genealogy which fails the |verifiability requirement for Wikipedia articles due to a lack of |reliable sources to establish the claims made
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: This article states things as facts.  I assume that the existence of a Richard Le Forester (or such like) and of his sons can be established.  If so, it ought to be possible to say what lands in England they were granted.  What is not established is that he was a son of Baldwin V, or that he is the ancester of every one called Foster or Forster.  There were a lot of Royal Forests in England, and many of them had foresters, for some of whom this will have become a surname.  Either this article should be deleted, but it would be better if it were toned down in the light of this AFD discussion.  That Pearce claimed he was a son of Baldwin V is factual; however from what others have discovered this factoid is not based on any reliable source.  Accordingly, Pearce (and probably many websites based on him) are not .  I regret to say that genealogists when dealing with remote periods are inclined to make guesses, which others then quote as fact
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Unfortuantely several contributors above failed to vote clearly.  However the consensus is clear.  The relisting admin, appears to be have been too lazy to read the discussion properly and realise that it clearly fails , unless this invented genealogy is so notorious that it needs an article to make clear that it is wholly spurious
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)