Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl

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 Speedily closed, the article has been heavily revised. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl[edit]

Delete. The content of this tale supposedly attributed to Postclassic Aztec mythology is unverified, and does not seem to be accounted for in any of the standard primary/secondary sources. At best, this could be merely a modern invention/interpretation, of the tour-guide variety. Without substantiation as a genuine mythological account, merits deletion. cjllw | TALK 04:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source ~~or delete.~~ MER-C 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has been sourced, this article may be kept. MER-C 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've heard this legend before, and I'm sure reliable sources can be found (try using the names "Izta" and "Popo"). —ShadowHalo 05:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Delete if no sources are found, keep if sources are found. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the article is verified with reliable sources during this AFD period. Ter e nc e Ong 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles creator seems to have quite a few edits under his belt, especially in this arena. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote for delete unless this article can be realiably sourced. wtfunkymonkey 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've totally revamped and properly sourced this article/Keep The problem with legends and myths, especially from lost cultures, is there may be no authoritative version of them. In this case, there seem to be at least several variations out there. To keep things simple, I've mainly based the article on a version used in a Smithsonian Institution exhibition in September 2006 - if it's good enough for the Smithsonian, should be okay for Wikipedia - and also noted that this is just one version. Bwithh 06:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after a complete rewrite with reliable sources. Just needs even further expansion asap. Ter e nc e Ong 06:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice work on the sourcing and rewrite, Bwithh. On the face of the information it still however does seem to me to be a legend or tale of more contemporary provenance, than something which is explicitly documented for the pre-Columbian Aztec. A pity the exhibition and those guidebooks don't seem to say anything more than "according to legend". So perhaps the article could be recategorised/annotated as a more general/recent legend, but anyways granted that there are sufficient references to these particular versions.--cjllw | TALK 08:19,

19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep As long as the story is called "mexican folklore" and not "aztec mythology" I don't have a problem with it. It certainly is well known both in Mexico and in guidebooks. I have asked a wide forum of nahuatl specialists and while all of them know the story and some of them know it from modern nahuatl communities none of them know anything that might suggest a precolumbian origin of the story. Like CJLLW I really hink that this is a postcolonial piece of folklore. Maunus 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Reason for deletion is no longer valid. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 19 December 2006 (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.