Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aztec shadow snake


 * 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. Admitted hoax. Mgm|(talk) 13:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Aztec shadow snake

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete, as probable hoax; see discussion on talkpg. Aztec "shadow snake" or a mythical creature fitting its description and attributes is not found in any of the usual and comprehensive sources on Aztec mythology, or for that matter on more contemporary Mexican folkore. In particular, there appears to be no mention at all of this mythical creature in either of the two books that are given as citations. I own and am quite familiar with one of those books (Miller & Taube 1993), and the other is searchable via googlebooks. None of the several mentions of "snake" or "serpent" in these books covers anything remotely like this tale. When challenged to provide the specifics of the sources used, the article's creator responded with a supposed "exact quote" paraphrasing the article content, but did not say where the quote comes from, despite a clear request. The exact quote also changed the alleged Nahuatl word for this creature, originally appearing in the article as Tiquiztocotl but then changed (after I'd pointed out this is not a feasible Nahuatl construction and doesn't contain Nahuatl elements for snake or shadow) in the exact quote to ecahuillicoatl. Two things here: firstly, if that was an exact quote from some authentic source that is being used, then why the difference between the two Nahuatl names? Secondly, as pointed out on the talkpg while ecahuillicoatl does incorporate Nahauatl words for "shadow" and "snake", it is an incorrectly formed noun-noun compound (in such constructions the absolutive suffix -li should be dropped). It's almost as if someone looked up some Nahuatl dictionary for the words for "shadow" and "snake" and then jammed them together without regard to Nahuatl's word formation rules. In summary, verifiable sources confirming the information have not been provided, the sources that were provided do not contain the information, searches for the information in other reliable sources have thus far drawn a blank. Either it's a hoax, or it's a description of some genuine mythological entity that's so garbled and the sources are mismatched, or it's so obscure and little-documented a tale that one wonders if it's notable. The sequence of events and circumstances leads me to suspect the first of these. cjllw ʘ  TALK 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.   —cjllw  ʘ  TALK 06:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. My copy of Miller & Taube has nothing of the sort.  Madman (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Well researched! AlexTiefling (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, I admit it was a hoax. But how was this caught so quickly, when a hoax about a similar topic that was much more blatant (for example, no sources, the supposed Nahuatl name didn't even sound Nahuatl, etc.) took a full six months? --Pi3141592 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 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.