Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Morales


 * 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. DS (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Morales
Article is unverifiable and a WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A crazy limiting Gsearch found nothing about the guy.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for notability reasons if not as a hoax.
 * 1)Notability is determined by reference to reliable independent sources, but the only apparently notable people of this name are two football players and a retired boxer, all from the twentieth century. There are no sources for a 16th century Mexican leader called Isaac Morales;
 * 2)Mexico City wasn't founded by Isaac Morales from the 1500's, it was founded by the Aztecs in 1325.
 * 3)The borders of Mexico weren't protected by Isaac Morales' border patrol from the 1500's, they were in theory protected by Spanish soldiers under the command of Antonio de Mendoza and Luis de Velasco. In practice they weren't protected by anybody, because the borders of what was then called New Spain extended as far north as settlers wished to take them and as far south as military force and exploration could reach. The concept of a "border patrol" separate to the military or local police didn't become a reality until 1904, 350 years after the alleged Isaac Morales.
 * 4)The "references" at the end of the article show a caricature of a Mexican bandit, what might be an Incan, and a zombie. While not conclusive proof of anything except minor vandalism, their inclusion suggests thr article creator doesn't take his subject very seriously.
 * In summary - a failure to meet any of the notability requirements for an article or a biography. A number of claims that conflict with well-referenced history, and evidence that the articlec reator considers the article something of a joke.  Euryalus (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hoax (nicely put Euryalus)  Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoaxalicious, as amply shown by Euryalus. Edward321 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete hoaxalicious. I fail to see how three random pictures prove anything. JuJube (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject does not appear notable. Hoax seems plausible because if born in the 15th century, that in the 1400's.  So if he died in 1589, he was at least 89 years old, as much as 188 years old.  Let's me nice to the editor and politely tell him it's being deleted on notability issues and don't taunt him.  In other words, AGF. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (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.