Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Pyramid of Puñay


 * 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. –MuZemike 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lost Pyramid of Puñay

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

If this pyramid exists, and I have no reason to think that it does (I have done a search), it is clearly not notable. The article itself is clearly promoting and sourced from a tour company offering eco tours - Ecuardor Eco Adventure, and the article was created by  -- Ecuador Eco Advice. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article appears to be making some fairly extraordinary claims regarding South American archaeology and because of that, in order for this article to be acceptable we'd have to see some kind of solid reliably sourced backing from mainstream scientific literature to substantiate the somewhat amazing claims being made here. Even if further study substantiates what's being contended; all we can deal with here is the article in its present state; not the idealized way it may look one day when/if supporting evidence eventually appears in a reliable source. Supporting references using information found on a tourism site is not sufficient in this context in my opinion. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but it needs severe de-editorialising: ministers in the Government there seem to take it seriously, and Hoy is a (reasonably) reliable newspaper quoting studies from a credible centre of studies (but not a university). But the article must be able to justify its existence without such heavy reliance on a vested interest.  I can however see a potential problem: will we get the sources that give rise to the travel company's claims, or the press releases of the travel company relayed through "Reliable Sources"?  I would also suggest a less commercialised title for the article: the feature is not so well known as to have such a stylised sobriquet, so move the article, dropping the "Lost" bit.  Kevin McE (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The government interest (which seems tourism driven, but why not) is I presume this which mentions a temple but no pyramid. The centre of studies is a tourism centre, and the main person involved, a lecturer there, seems to be also Regional Director of Tourism. There's no evidence for any involvement by archaeologists. The claim is extraordinary, and needs some very good sources. And no archaeologist would ever dream of saying something was 4657 years old, C14 dating is no where near that exact and an archaeologist claiming such a date would lose credibility. Hoy is just quoting claims, and that isn't enough for an article like this. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep Seems to meet the bare req. for notability, even if it is an overhyped site; badly needs re-write. Archaeologists do publish uncalibrated radiocarbon dates such as "4657 BP", so this does not alarm me (although it is normal practice to give standard deviation and calibration, see sec. 3.3.5 of the SAA style guide for more info: http://www.saa.org/StyleGuideText/tabid/985/Default.aspx.)Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * comment -- three options, per my comments at the article's talk page here. 1)delete as article about the pyramid, since the status/existence of the pyramid is not at all confirmed and apart from the small group @ ESPOCH who are its claimed finders, there appears to be no-one else claiming it. 2)rewrite to be an article on the mountain itself, with the pyramid material relegated to a section on the claims. 3)merge claims into article about the municipality and/or towns, Chunchi. This would require a rewrite also. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 16:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The dissertation used as a source is called ""Plan estrategico para el desarrollo turistico del canton chunchi" ("Strategic Plan for Tourism Development of the canton Chunchi") and was, according to this, part of an engineering degree in Ecotourism. I see no evidence that this was for a higher degree, certainly not a PhD. This 2007 article published by the Ministry of Tourism mentions "The majesty of Mt Puñay and Andean temple, " (a temple-shaped ceremonial macaw which I presume means temple shaped like a Macaw) and a " Declaration of Cerro Puñay as Spiritual Heritage of Humanity," "What is certain is that Puñay is a mountain that at the time of the Canaris was a ceremonial center and a privileged site for astronomical observations.".  And something about the Advent of the New Age. But no suggestions that this has been seriously studied, no verification for a temple, etc.  Something in Chunchi is probably the best thing to do, unless it is possible to find more on the mountain - but I've looked and came up blank with very little. Oh, the Rough Guide to Ecuador says   " ruins of Punay, laid out in the shape of a macaw and said to have strange magnetic properties". And anything in Chunchi should make it clear that this is a tourist related claim with no academic backing. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2010 (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.