Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristóbal de Entizne

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cristóbal de Entizne[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a hoax. I have been unable to find coverage about Cristóbal de Entizne in a Google News Archive search and a Google Books search.

The talk page contains the follow comments:

Extended content

== Article issues ==

I can locate no references or mentions of a person by this or similar name, either in the usual print sources relating to Cortes or this period (Gomara, Diaz del Castillo, the Cartes, etc) or indeed anywhere else. This is concerning, unless there's some variant name spelling this person is otherwise referred by I have serious doubts that this is an authentic article. The (unreferenced) information provided is also suspect -- for example, the expedition sent north towards Baja California in 1532 by Cortes was commanded by Diego Hurtado de Mendoza (a cousin of Cortes), not anyone called "Cristobal" or "Entizne". The second ship was under Juan de Mazuela. True enough the expedition met a sticky end, but at least two members made it back from one of the ships to tell the tale. See the spanish wiki es:Diego Hurtado de Mendoza (explorador), also this reference here for example.

Unless references can be supplied (will ask of the article creator, tho this article's creation has been their sole edit thus far), I'd say this needs to be put up for deletion.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like anon ip user 64.113.123.122 (talk · contribs), who I presume is the article's creator when not logged on, has added in a section containing a handful of familiar primary & secondary sources on Cortes and the Conquest era.

However, none of these sources contain any mention, anywhere, of a person named Cristóbal de Entizne or something similar. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, do they contain any mention of someone else whose exploits fit the description given here.

I have asked the anon contributor to provide, if they can, the edition, chapter and page number details where this 'Cristóbal de Entizne' is supposed to be mentioned in these texts, and the full quoted passages where it appears to allow for verification.

Suspicions of a hoax or prank remain high, without any relevant, direct and verifiable citations proving otherwise. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as unsubstantiated & probable hoax per my earlier comments on its talkpage. No source anywhere, let alone the sources most relevant to the conquest era, can be located that mention an individual going by this name, even in passing. There are two crew lists of Hurtado de Mendoza's expedition that still survive, naming the full complement of 53 participants [1]. There was no conquistador called Cristobal on that voyage, never mind anyone named anything like Entizne.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DElete: Fails notability guidelines, probable hoax. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (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.