The Wikipedia article has citations, which one can follow up on. I would say what is lazy is posting a link to “The Yucatan Times”, not exactly a reputable sour

The Wikipedia article has citations, which one can follow up on. I would say what is lazy is posting a link to “The Yucatan Times”, not exactly a reputable source on Indian archaeology, without even noticing that that article was sourced from a now-defunct article at New India Express, again not a reputable source on Indian archaeology. That source article, to judge from what was saved at Wayback Machine, does not cite a single scholar’s name or publication in making its claims. Moreover, even if the dating of human presence at the site does date back to the claimed date, your article says nothing about Krishna except the aforementioned legend.