Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham

: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 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Baron Lavenham]]=

:{{la|Baron Lavenham}} ([{{fullurl:Baron Lavenham|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Google searches make this seem legit. What evidence do you have that it is hoax? Mystache (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I get nothing on Google apart from endless Wikipedia mirrors. No obvious reliable sources, no Google books results apart from one which is clearly fiction. According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Springs of Lavenham did exist but were simply a wealthy line of merchants, there is no record of any of them holding a barony. I have to concur that this is a wide-ranging hoax so delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Googe search finds only results linking to either this hoax article (and its subsidiaries) or to the fictional character of this book The Talisman Ring.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. It's neither existing in the relevant standard books (Burke's, Debrett's, Cracroft's) nor referenced in the web at the usual sites (Rayment). See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete this and all related articles (see above) as hoaxes. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete The supposed citation to Burke's appears to be deliberately misleading. Choess (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong delete as hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor. If it's not listed in the std reference work son peerages, this article is a hoax, and so are the articles on the other alleged peers in this family. The only article in this massive compendium of rubbish that I have examined in detail is Sir William Spring II, which has some elements of plausiblity but falls apart on close examination: it claims that Spring II was the father of a man only 3 years younger than himself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.