Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole stuffed camel (2nd nomination)

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 keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Although I encourage interested editors to ensure that the article reflects the view that this is very likely a hoax. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whole stuffed camel

Whole stuffed camel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whole stuffed camel does not sound worthy of being included on Wikipedia. This is more of an urban legend/hoax so it should be deleted as Wikipedia is not an urban legends site. Even if it is not a hoax, it would not be notable enough. 747pilot (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding if this is a hoax, I found one book that quotes Guinness World Records as naming it the largest item on a menu in the world, but my searching of the easy-to-search Guinness database found no such record.

My searches of news and books could only find very low credability sources talking about this without irony, and even then they were mostly talking about it jokingly.

I searched images of this, but the results looked doctored.

Conversely, I did find a published academic paper identifying this as folklore "In their collection of urban folklore titled Never Try to Teach a Pig to Sing: Still More Urban Folklore from the Paperwork Empire, Alan Dundes and Carl R. Pagter identify “Elephant Stew,” “Stuffed Camel,” and “Best Ever Rum Cake” as examples of joke recipes that recur in multiple recipe collections" (source: Dutch, Jennifer Rachel. “Not Just for Laughs: Parody Recipes in Four Community Cookbooks.” Western Folklore 77, no. 3/4 (2018): 249–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26864126.)

So I think this is a hoax. CT55555(talk) 03:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Middle East. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A whole stuffed camel? That's one of the most absurd dishes I've ever heard of! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a more serious note, whether its a joke or not, I was able to find some coverage of a "stuffed camel" recipe: Food Cultures of the World Encyclopedia; How To Cook A Camel and 101 Delicious Recipies; Stuffed camel may be pushing it a bit too far on recipes from The Vincennes Sun-Commercial; Stuffed camel can get you over the company hump from the News-Press; Stuffed Animals: A Modern Guide to Taxidermy; Gastro Obscura; Andrew Zimmern's Field Guide to Exceptionally Weird, Wild, and Wonderful Foods; Department of State News Letter; Books in Brief from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin; Michelangelo of the Kitchen from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; How to roast a camel and other culinary trips from The Hanford Sentinel, plus others. It does look like a GNG pass in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with no offence intended to 747pilot it is appropriate for Wikipedia to document notable urban myths and hoaxes, identified as such, of course. I'm currently a very weak keep on the grounds that it does seem to have been referred to quite a bit. But with no strong feelings either way. The test is this: could a reader come across it, and wonder what the background is? Can we help them? I think the answers are just about 'yes'. Elemimele (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sources exist and it appears that the WP page reflects the story rather than being the origin of it. It might need work to reflect more clearly the multiple sources which say it is a legend/myth. JMWt (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it appears to be real from the article. Those who are uninformed may really think it's real. Wikipedia should be a source of information, not misinformation so I think deleting it will be best. 747pilot (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the job of WP to police what is or is not a hoax. We reflect what is written by others, we don't have a role in producing original research. Even if this is a longstanding hoax, the fact is that plenty of sources have repeated it. Providing that the uncertainty about the facts is properly and prominently stated, it is perfectly normal to have pages on topics which other people think are hoaxes. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per arguments laid out by JMWt. Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia covers notable hoaxes and urban legends. BD2412 T 19:22, 6 February 2023 (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.