Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Sopa de Pene

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Sopa de Pene

Actually I think the page could anyway be deleted/merged back into soup - but am raising as Afd to generate discussion rather than leave on Prod as the text for this page comes entirely from edit [1] which has been on Soup page since 2006. As reason for previous prod was hoax we need to determine if it is actually hoax so references on soup page which seem to have entered common belief now even if they weren't before can be fixed. I think it has some basis in fact as "tronquito" (bull penis soup) is mentioned frequently regarding food in Equador, but have not found originating source for this name/details that is prior to the 2006 edit. Hunting dog (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
Delete - Tronquito might or might not be notable (note those ghits inevitably mention it right after "roasted cuy (guinea pig)", implying a common source for all of them). It's a moot point. We're talking about "The Soup of Penis", which seems to have no independant ghits (the one mentioned on the talk page is on a blog from two months after the paragraph was added to Soup and seems to derive from it) and certainly has no reliable sources. Does "The Soup of Penis" exist under that name? Seems unlikely. Is it notable? No - if we can't be sure it exists, it certainly is not. Does "Tronquito" exist? Probably. Is it notable? Not without significant coverage in reliable sources, which we simply do not have. If you would like to start Tronquito, I think it's a good deletion candidate as well, based on current (lack of) sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, so could be a hoax. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2008 (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.