Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Spring III
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. 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?Per , ''"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 .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 , 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
— User:BrownHairedGirl, 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:V||WP:V (Wikipedia:Verifiability)