Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole stuffed camel


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  HurricaneFan 25  00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Whole stuffed camel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Is this article sourced? Yes, but the sources don't demonstrate that it's actually a recipe, nor do they demonstrate notability. This may be a hoax, but it's not a notable one. Doesn't appear that this half-baked article has ever been discussed here, so it's overdone, er, due. ~TPW 19:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep -> Keep -> KEEP . If it is amply sourced (I've added another), that certainly demonstrates notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources cited in the Snopes article are enough to show notability and more can be found by searching.  It's well-known, and whether hoax or not, there's no reason not to keep this article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – It gets about as substantial coverage as individual dishes would in reliable sources, presented as both fact (Food Cultures of the World Encyclopedia; Let's Visit Iran p. 17; The Bermudian, Volume 42 [Libya, 1971]; Gourmet, Volume 52, Issues 7–12, p. 44 [Saudi Arabia, 1992]; State, US Dept of State, Issues 219-229, p. 13 [Somalia, 1980]) and an urban(?) legend or joke (Never Try to Teach a Pig to Sing: still more urban folklore from the paperwork empire; and my personal favorite I'm OK, you're a pain in the neck p. 83). It also gets plenty of other mention in less reputable sources indicating stuffed camel somewhat well-known. I found it helpful to search gbooks for  . The term "whole stuffed camel" might be descriptive, but the more notable term seems to be just "stuffed camel." JFHJr (㊟) 01:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a culinary joke. Edison (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The recipe might be a hoax and might not be, and the article acknowledges both sides along with several reliable sources. Neutral and verifiable. Good enough for me. Steven Walling &bull; talk   07:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Documented in detail in this encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Documented, with enough coverage to meet the General Notability Guideline. Ronk01   talk  16:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is clear, skeptical, as well documented as it is reasonable to expect. To me, the strongest argument is that I came to Wikipedia fully expecting to find such an article, which, when read, disabused me of the notion that it was a serious recipe, but included enough information to account for my having heard of the thing.  Ortolan88 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I came here looking for this precise information. Whether it's a hoax was irrelevant to my research. I had heard of the concept somewhere and was looking for the name of the dish and the ingredients used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.101.232 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article deals with a discrete and significant culinary dish, and has citations that both indicate the existence of the recipe and reflect skepticism in the dish as conceived.Neumannk (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (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.