Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-history

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 of the debate was delete – Gurch 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-history

unverifiable OR, or perhaps hoax or joke. There's certainly no connection with the actual Maya civilization, as the article claims. While there are a great number of offbeat ideas surrounding the Maya Long Count calendar, this is not one of them, unless it is very shabbily described. cjllw | TALK 10:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as hoax unless sources are actually found. Wickethewok 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a Hoax, I found this[1], this[2], and this[3]. I think a redirect to Maya calendar is in order. Yanksox 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely not a hoax, but doesn't need an article. Redirect works too —Mets501^talk 16:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge to Maya calendar - Not a hoax, is notable per Google, but sources do need to be cited. Would support merging or redirecting. Chet nc 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• ZOMG! Redirect to End of the world -999 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, if it is a rather vague distillation of some New Age/esoteric (mis-)conceptions about the implications of the Maya Long Count calendar, then the redirect should go to Harmonic Convergence, since it appears that is the context in which the term was used by Arguelles. There seems to be not much by meaningful content here to merge (to be fair to the article's creator, "meaningful content" is a rather scarce commodity in Arguelles' speculations in any event). It definitely should not be redirected or merged to Maya calendar or any other article on the genuine products and beliefs of the Maya civilization— these are entirely separate from and have nothing to do with modern-day syncreticisms and fabrications such as this.--cjllw | TALK 02:08, 9 June 2006 (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.