Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo soy Choncha


 * 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   delete. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yo soy Choncha

 * Note to closing admin: The !votes below that have been struck were made by confirmed sockpuppets of the user who created the article. Thomas.W (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BK Taroaldo    ✉   22:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is a recreation of a recently deleted article, Deletion log: 17:09, 13 June 2013 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted page Yo soy Choncha (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Expired PROD, concern was: Article in es-wiki was deleted as promotional; Google.mx results do not show that this meets the Ochiwar (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no substantial coverage for this in the Spanish-language media, other than a very superficial story about an alleged bullying incident that is supposedly tied to the book, which would be WP:NOTNEWS on a good day. In any case, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. The article on es-wiki was deleted as promotional, and this one has been speedied twice already. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If User:NawlinWiki or another admin would mind comparing the deleted article and the current one, maybe it can be speedied. Ansh666 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The previous article was actually much longer but was written entirely in Spanish. I'd say let the AFD run its course so if it ever shows up again it can simply be G4'ed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Darn, now I actually have to look at the page Delete per FreeRangeFrog, though, and the fact that it's quite incoherent (at least to me). Ansh666 00:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify: Delete per Frog above, Tokyogirl and Frei sein below, and es-wiki. Lack of WP:RS to support even the book's existence beyond blogs. WP:SPAM at best. Ansh666 21:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And add NaCl (salt, for those not chemically aligned), per below. Ansh666 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've cleaned the page up for clarity, as I want this to be deleted on its own merits rather than because the book's article looked awful. I was actually one of the admins that deleted the previous versions of this due to it being so obviously promotional. (I deleted it the first time around.) The tough thing about this is that there is chatter... on non-usable sources. I was able to piece together that this was initially published as an anonymous blog, probably due to the author wanting to avoid criticism. It seems like there were plans for a telenovela of this at one point in time around 2009/2010, but I can't verify if this was actually made. Most of what I'm finding suggests that it wasn't. None of this is really usable as a RS, though. I can't even really find anything reliable that could back up the claims of this initially being a blog. Granted my Spanish is poor (even though I'm using GTranslate to supplement that), but I just can't find anything that would show notability for this. I tried searching with the author's name and since this was initially anonymously published, just the book title itself. There just aren't any real RS that would back up half of the claims made in the book's wiki. This is a delete on my end. Considering that this is the third incarnation of the article on this Wikipedia, I'd actually suggest probably salting this to prevent it being made a fourth time. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I can't recall ever having seen such an odd collection of search results on anything before. Even Roald Dahl's name was coming up. I'm not sure what that was about. Of course, my Spanish isn't great either. Taroaldo    ✉   07:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment at es-wiki the entry has been protected from the endless sockpuppets re-creations: Insisting in publish, with slightly changes on the writing, again and again the same entry or even with different title. Also was needed temporary protection to some related themes, such as Bulimia and Pro-ana, due to edit wars at the insistence of adding false information (such as the word “Bulimia” was said it for the first time by Yo soy choncha as its "creator", when the real fact is the Bulimia nervosa was named and first described in 1979 by a psychiatrist). —Frei sein (Talk to me!) 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentHello! I find it strange that you have voted for this article be deleted because you're the one who has written and updated on it, you are against or not? my English is bad --Lovelky18881 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hi, everyone! I am an editor from es-wiki, and I would like to notice that there is not such "book" published under the name "Yo soy Choncha" or similars from the Editorial Trillas. Trillas is a publishing house dedicated to publish books—mostly for universities—and always provide its books with ISBN. In the catalog from the publishing house there is not mention from this "book", nor exist ISBN. Neither has been found any serious or reputable sources to support the alleged "book" existence, or even the oficial statement from the editorial house about the withdrawn from the market or even the prohibition to be sold (specially if was a big "sale success" as claimed in the spanish article). All that exists about "Yo soy Choncha" are blogs entries, several posts in forums or notes from dubious sources, wich lead to believe than has never been published as "book" and is only propaganda or promotion from a blog or personal pages. —Frei sein (Talk to me!) 15:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Creator (or someone close to them) has attempted to remove the AfD tag. 99% of the time I see this the article spells SPAM & Advertising. However I still do my research and I am unable to find any RS on this except user blogs etc. and none are even in English. Tyros1972 Talk 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The book if there is Mexico, many people will have courage because it is a book that promotes Anorexia and Bulimia Bullying should therefore not be deleted because the public has to have an explanation of why it off the market, Editorial Trillas all he did was disappear any mention of Yo soy Choncha as they were threatened to be fined for promoting eating disorders, the book is too well known not only for the controversy of its contents if not by the media, it is worth mentioning Tv notas, Bellezaymoda.com and totally reliable sources have mentioned the fact are as references, people Spanish Wikipedia article deleted it personally but not for failing to meet Wikipedia standards, since they are in against the book, Yo soy Choncha section in Spanish wikipedia online hard 5 months --Lovelky18881 (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: My vote is positive, Yo Soy Choncha is a 2003 book that only sold in Mexico, unfortunately promoted eating disorders and was withdrawn from the market, the book was sold in Sanborns, El Palacio de Hierro in México among others, many media mention, Editorial Trillas to protect its reputation erased him from your list, you can not promote a book that was taken off the market, my opinion there should be an article esque talk about him and his exit from the market because Wikipedia in Spanish is against him for promoting anorexia and bulimia and delete it without a vote, something totally anti wikipedia --BooksWiki94 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The basic standard to be applied here is simple: are there sufficient WP:RS and sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia? The answer to both is no. Therefore the material should be deleted. Taroaldo    ✉   21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If you do, perhaps not English, but in Spanish if and have already placed many references to it which make mention and the book is checked if existed. --BooksWiki94 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The main question regarding references is whether or not a source is reliable, per WP:RS. The ones on en-wiki and es-wiki (verified by Frei sein) are not. Ansh666 22:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Do not understand why they say that the book does not exist or that the author is a model, here'll add more references which make mention of him and his author Maria Jose Rubio, Cosas Magazine http://cosas.pe/personajes/maria-jose-rubio-lecciones-de-independencia and Espectaculos Online http://www.espectaculos-online.com.mx/2013/03/25/televisa-quiere-hacer-el-remake-de-yo-soy-choncha/?logout=1#permalink --Changied1 (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have checked all references and sources are reliable and recognized media in Latin America, Tv Notas, Espectaculos Online, Cosas Magazine, No doubt, the book is real Espectaculos Online, Tv Notas, Cosas Magazine --Fresitabella (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: The book if it existed, the references are valid therefore the article should stay --BereniceGirl (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — BereniceGirl (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy delete: Pure promotion. Thomas.W (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: That ridiculous, as it will do a book promotion is no longer for sale? --Strawbutter (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The behavior of the apparent socks here, which includes BereniceGirl deleting my !vote, makes me believe that we will have a long term problem on our hands, with repeated recreation of the article, unless we not only delete the current article but also SALT the title and all possible variations thereof. Thomas.W (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BKand WP:GNG --and salt!--Smerus (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Salt As Nom, I am adding that to my obvious delete. Going forward, this alleged cluster of socks should have RBI applied. Taroaldo    ✉   09:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: This found that the book exists, have been added and all references have been verified to be reliable sources, if you are against it because it promotes anorexia and bulimia should maturing or at least disguise --Geralynny (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is clear that people who vote to eliminate is that they are against the book, what a coincidence that eliminate user spa etiquette though Frei Sein has no issues and the people who vote Keep them put the tag Spa, which horror, as much immaturity, my vote is positive because the book exists --Strawbutter (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: No-one doubts that the book exists, the question is if the book is notable enough to have an article on en-Wiki. Which it, by all available evidence, is not. Thomas.W (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * SALT For reasons Taroaldo stated and also this is SPAM as I said before. Tyros1972 Talk 11:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt All socks here (which believe that by saying keep it will be kept) proved this article is just for advertisement purposes. The book is not sold anymore, but it still being a vehicle for promotion of it. The book fails WP:GNG as all relevant references I could find were blogs, a wikia, forums, and questions about why it is forbidden to be sold. TV Notas is not a reliable source, it is just a gossip magazine as reliable as English tabloids. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Sockpuppets of Lovesexy189 have been confirmed and blocked. See Sockpuppet investigations/Lovesexy189. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And just by coincidence all users who so far have !voted to keep the article have been confirmed as sock puppets of User:Lovesexy189, the user who recreated the article. Meaning that we can strike the votes of User:Lovelky18881, User:Changied1, User:BooksWiki94, User:BereniceGirl, User:Fresitabella, User:Strawbutter and User:Geralynny. Thomas.W (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Why emphasize the nicknames of people who vote to Keep? Here it is shown that Toroaldo, and people who vote for delete discover the book are, they want to eliminate something personal and not because the article does not meet the rules, do you have evidence that the people who voted for keep are the same?, do you have evidence that they are the same Ip? if they do put them and demanding they spend, are also required you to put evidence, I can say that those who voted for Delete are the same and the stress that immaturity of these people --Hayden481 (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's called CheckUser and it confirmed many of the users above were sock-puppet accounts of the same single person, created to spam this AFD with keep votes. As such, said votes have been struck, leaving exactly nobody supporting the retention of this article. Consensus should be easy to determine. Stalwart 111  07:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt: I could find exactly ZERO mention in reliable independent sources, whether in English or in Spanish. Pure promotion of a totally non-notable book. The sockpuppetry seen in this AfD is a good sign that the sockmaster intends to recreate the article once again, so salting is highly advisible. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt and close. An obvious WP:SNOW result but for the ridiculous vote-spam from the article creator and his many, many accounts. Stalwart 111  07:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with requests to snow close and salt. If I wasn't involved, I'd snow close it myself. I'll see if I can find someone to step in here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:53, 16 June 2013 (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.