Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K'àak' Chi'


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

K&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Could be a hoax. Markov (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a hoax, but certainly mistaken. If kept it should be rewritten. More and more Mayanists have now piped up that this is misidentification of satellite imagery, and if this ever finds its way into academic literature it will be as a cautionary tale. The whole thing was effectively driven by social media, then picked up uncritically by mainstream media. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I created the article, and... I proposed it for deletion. Now, I don't know. :-) With this article in french, http://sciencepost.fr/2016/05/quebecois-pense-decouvert-cite-maya-a-t-berne-presse-mondiale/ it's not so clear.--Markov (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete after due consideration. If on-the-ground analysis throws anything up and a site is given this name, then we can create the article, otherwise I suspect this incident will be rapidly forgotten, and will not be particularly notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This story has gained enough international news attention to make the matter significant, but neither the "city" nor it's discoverer are significant. Let's add a note on the Maya city article about Gadoury's constellation-city map theory, but delete this article unless the weight of scientific opinion shifts in theory of it's existence, or towards supporting the constellation-city map theory (or if somebody actually hikes over there and confirms it's just an old corn field). - Eric (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've hiked in the general region, which is a vast forested plain, and generally speaking the pyramids of major sites are visible as forest-covered hills from the tops of the pyramids of neighbouring sites. It is highly unlikely that the "4th- or 5th-largest Maya city" would have escaped notice so close to many other important sites, such as El Mirador, Calakmul, El Tintal and others... and the constellation map theory is really not worth including in the Maya city article, in my opinion... it is certainly not supported by any reliable sources. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. OtterAM (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep: The purpose of an encyclopaedia (AFAICS) is to provide a broad outline of a subject for anyone who wants to know more in an easily digestible form.
 * The advantage of WP is that it is more accessible than a standard encyc, or more usual sources of expert knowledge, and is more neutral than a lot of other stuff on the internet.
 * The virtue of the article here is that it states clearly that it is a hypothetical Mayan site, lists the pros and cons in a neutral fashion, and provides a host of links to expert opinion (which I certainly wouldn't have found by myself).
 * If this story has been "driven by social media, then picked up uncritically by mainstream media" (and I don't necessarily disagree) then that, to me, is all the more reason to have something like this. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that if there turns out to be anything there, an article can always be created at a later date. At the moment it is all highly speculative, and not backed by any Mayanists. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as per Moonraker12. Hypotheticals, hoaxes etc such as this will be instructive to future readers and researchers on how not to do science etc. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Moonraker12. The second time I change my mind...--Markov (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As a media debacle it is not noteworthy enough, and certainly under this title. As an archaelogical discovery it is so far non-existent. Mezigue (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (unless someone can provide evidence of its significance). It is not a hoax in the ordinary sense.  However the description of it as "hypothetical" rings similar alarm bells with me.  My impression is that this is a possible archaeological site identified by remote sensing, possibly from satellite imagery.  Its existence has not been confirmed on the ground, so that its existence remains dubious.  There are thousands (possibly millions) of archaeological sites.  WP can hardly accommodate an article on every one of them.  In my view, if this is anything, it remains NN, at least until its significance is established.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, whether it turns out to exist or not, because of the coverage it has had in reliable sources thus meeting the GNG. If it turns out not to exist we should still have an article explaining its "discovery" and debunking. We have an article on Atlantis and that probably doesn't exist either. People will be searching for this place for decades wanting to know if it is real or not. We are the people to tell them. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Moonraker12 makes a strong case, and it passes WP:GNG. Those arguing for deletion have not advanced any policy-based argument. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until properly disproven. Also it seems the theory that cities were placed according to star maps has merit (possibly Uxul is the third city here) infieldg 21:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete So far there is no evidence at all that this city has existed et that the theory is backed up by tangible proofs. And the coverage it has received in the press is nothing else than a total failure of the media in checking an information. However this media debacle this not go for very long (5 days at best) and is therefore not really noticeable per se. If investigations on the field confirm the existence of the Maya city it will still be possible to create this article. Or to include this story on an article devoted to media failures when secondary sources appear and use this story in order to illustrate this topic. --Lebob (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Definitely meets GNG. As a side note, archaeoastronomy was professionally recognized with its first professional conference last summer (2015) in Europe (years after the rhetoric against alignments of sites noted by Alexander Thom) and later work by others noting communities possibly being established using constellation patterns. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The existence of that hypothetical city was proposed in a science fair project and a journalist distorted the facts by presenting it as a discovery backed by the Canadian Space Agency and the INAH. The truth is that the CSA helped the kid by providing some satellite images, but it never publicly endorsed his conclusions. Moreover, according to the Yucatan Times, the INAH said they were not even “considering” the alleged find, since “there is no scientific basis for it.”. The city was first reported in Belize, then it moved to Mexico, and yesterday it crossed Guatemala to meet the Hondura's border! Presently, there are no reliable sources for an encyclopedic article on this topic.Pablo Picossa (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 18:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a hoax, meets GNG, properly referenced and should stay even if the future fails to pinpoint it; just like Atlantis, Fountain of Youth etc. DeVerm (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best for now and Draft later if needed as this is all still questionable regarding exact facts and information, thus is better restarted when a better informed article is available. SwisterTwister   talk  04:59, 27 May 2016 (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.