Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 190: Line 190:
| rel_just =
| rel_just =
| sig = ?
| sig = ?
| sig_just = <small>{{bullet}}Comment by EEng: Completely disagree that this is sigcov, which requires that sources {{tq|address the topic directly and in detail}}. The only thing this article says about ''the subject of this article'' is: {{tq|For 23 years Barbara Eliza has been serving up warm donuts at Seattle's biggest, busiest tourist spot, Pike Place Market. Her business, the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, caters to locals and visitors alike, as well as other market vendors who open in the early morning.}} Period. Everything else is details of the flag dispute. If there was more coverage of the dispute, then ''it'' might be notable, but even then that doesn't make the firm notable 'cause, ya know, [[WP:NOTINHERITED]]. But anyway the dispute isn't notable either, apparently.<br>{{bullet}}Comment by Another Believer: I would consider this significant coverage.</small>
| sig_just = <small>{{bullet}}Comment by EEng: Completely disagree that this is sigcov, which requires that sources {{tq|address the topic directly and in detail}}. The only thing this article says about ''the subject of this article'' is: {{tq|For 23 years Barbara Eliza has been serving up warm donuts at Seattle's biggest, busiest tourist spot, Pike Place Market. Her business, the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, caters to locals and visitors alike, as well as other market vendors who open in the early morning.}} Period. Everything else is details of the flag dispute. If there was more coverage of the dispute, then ''it'' might be notable, but even then that doesn't make the firm notable 'cause, ya know, [[WP:NOTINHERITED]]. But anyway the dispute isn't notable either, apparently.<br>{{bullet}}Comment by Another Believer: I would consider this significant coverage.<br>{{Bullet}}Another comment by EEng: I cannot say that you are joking in writing that. I can only say that I ''hope'' you're joking.</small>
}}
}}
{{ source assess
{{ source assess

Revision as of 00:47, 13 December 2022

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (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)

Brochure advertising article for generic doughnut shop. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS, WP:PROMO, WP:AUD. WP:DEL4, and WP:DEL14 scope_creepTalk 03:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A source analysis has been completed for this article by admin Valereee and User:EEng , which has been copied here for perspicacity.


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Eater [1] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: The promise of hot mini doughnuts means a constant queue at Daily Dozen Doughnut Company in the Economy Market. It’s fun to watch the little pale blobs float along a river of hot oil in the automatic Donut Robot fryer, two by two — getting flipped halfway down the line — until they’re golden brown on both sides. Sharing a brown paper bag of sprinkle-topped or powdered sugar doughnuts with someone is cool, especially if the doughnuts are hot. ✘ No
Thrillist [2] Yes Yes No one of a list, entry reading in its entirety: All day long inside a tiny stall in the heart of the always-teeming Pike Place Market miniature rings of dough are plucked from a bath of hot oil by an aging Donut Robot (Mark II!) and served almost immediately, still hot and deliciously greasy. Sure, they only come in four flavors -- plain, tossed in sugar or cinnamon, and chocolate-sprinkled -- but they are so good you'll want at least... wait for it... a dozen! ✘ No
Seattle Eater [3] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: Right in the center of Pike Place Market is the iconic Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, slinger of mini doughnuts fresh out of the onsite fryer. Market shoppers lured by the ubiquitous smells of fried, sugary dough form long lines to wait for a bag of these doughnuts. Grab a half or full dozen of powdered, plain or rotating seasonal specials while they’re hot. ✘ No
Fodor's Seattle [4] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: If you're visiting Pikes Place Market, Daily Dozen Donuts has adorable, made-while-you-watch minidonuts dusted in powdered sugar.
 • Comment by EEng: (This one's especially interesting because it doesn't even suggest you go out of your way, but if you happen to be visiting Pikes Place anyway, well then sure, since you're already there...) 		✘ No
Sunset [5] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: Owner Barbara Elza started making doughnuts at this lively stand in Pike Place Market 15 years ago, and she fell in love with the job. “It’s a big family here,” she says. “We know how to have fun.” Locals and visitors have a great time watching the “Donut Robot” ― a machine invented in the 1930s―turn out fresh, hot miniature doughnuts in plain, sugar, and cinnamon-sugar. The frosted “fancies” tend to disappear quickly. “Kids are stronger than you think,” Elza says. “They can really muscle their way to the front.” ✘ No
Serious Eats [6] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: While much of Seattle may have a soft spot for Top Pot Doughnuts, with locations all over the city, we prefer this little Pike Place Market stall. Sure, you can get fresh doughtnuts at plenty of shops --- but at Daily Dozen, mini doughnuts are actually plucked from the Donut Robot II conveyor belt. (That may mean a little more oil, but we won't complain.) Tossed into a brown paper bag with sugar, sprinkles, or cinnamon,, they're handed over the counter. They're so hot that when you bite one open, steam pours from its interior. Moist, squishy, crunchy with sugar -- the little guys tend to disappear before you've even walked to the next stall. (Skip the frosted ones. Straight up sugar is where it's at. ✘ No
Vancouver Sun [7] Yes Yes No bare mention ✘ No
Seattle Post-Intelligencer [8] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: The famous Pike Place Market post is a family affair that serves up miniature doughnuts to countless tourists and the locals who know to flock to this gem. ✘ No
The Stranger Yes AGF Yes AGF No Reads in its entirety: To mark to occasion, Daily Dozen Doughnut Company is giving away free doughnuts and hot beverages to the first 115 people who stop by their special tent in Pike Place Market on Wednesday, August 17. ✘ No
Seattle Weekly Yes AGF Yes AGF No Reads in its entirety: In such a paradise, Daily Dozen Doughnut Company in Pike Place Market (93 Pike Place, 467-7769) would be trumpeted as the essential snack of the Emerald City. The hot, freshly made little gems are so deceptively nonthreatening and bite-sized that you tend to eat them like popcorn, which, in the ugly real world, can be the cause of a disturbing revelation when you look down into your paper bag and realize you’ve mowed your way through 12 doughnuts without so much as a burp. Powdered, chocolate-iced, sprinkled, or—our favorite—plain and golden, the goodies are a steal at a couple of bucks per dozen. But don’t say we didn’t warn you. ✘ No
Bon Appetit america-s-best-donuts-part-2 Yes Yes No one item in a list so long it was created in two parts Not on the list of best donuts, rather a subsequent list of 57 donut shops one or more readers wrote in about, angry their favorite shop wasn't on the first list. ✘ No
Pike Place Market Recipes [9] Yes AGF Yes AGF No Two isolated bare mentions reading: If there's one pervasive morning smell in the Pike Place Market, it's cinnamon. The Daily Dozen Doughnut Company douses hot miniature fried orbs with cinnamon sugar, to the pure thrill of kids and adults alike and After a bite (or six) at Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, the Economy Market stall that churns out piping-hot cinnamon-sugar mini doughnuts all morning, you'll get a quick tour of MarketSpice ... ✘ No
KOMO-TV [10] Yes Yes No really not even a bare mention, just identifying shop owner commenting on a completely different topic: "This is cheating. When you misrepresent yourself, you're cheating," said Barbara Elza, owner of Daily Dozen Donut Company, a Pike Place Market mainstay for nearly 30 years. "I don't even have enough to meet my expenses this month, let alone stash something offshore."
 • Side comment by EEng: Putting this source in the article is cheating. When you misrepresent a source like this, as if it has anything at all to do with the subject of the article, it's cheating. 		✘ No
The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin [11] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: "In Seattle’s Pike Place Market, a tiny donut stand called Daily Dozen sells the freshest donuts you may ever buy.They drop down in a continuous stream from a Belshaw model little bigger than a toaster oven. They’re hot, greasy, and addictive." ✘ No
Food Lovers Guide to Seattle Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: A doughnut shop that has been around for over 20 years and still has a line almost all day long, the charm of this place is in its simplicity: fresh, hot mini doughnuts served in a brown paper bag, heating the roof of your mouth on a chilly day, the aroma taunting you as you wait in line. The doughnuts come in dozens or half dozens. The flavors are plain, powdered, cinnamon, or sprinkled (chocolate fudge with sprinkles). The powdered sugar and sprinkled come cold, but the other two come hot. ✘ No
100 things to do [12] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: And don't forget to indulge snacky sweet cravings on the way out with minidonuts from the Daily Dozen Donut Company. But they're fun-sized, so go crazy with at least a half dozen. Better yet, make it a dozen, because when they're made in front of you, self-deprivation loses. And, they're cheap! ✘ No
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Have you tried all 26 of these iconic Seattle bites? [13] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: USA Today mentioned this place as a foodie stop in the Pike Place Market, affirming that hot doughnuts in a paper sack are sublime. ✘ No
Thrillist [14] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: Perfectly fried-up and crispy, the mini donuts at Daily Dozen are a famous staple of Pike Place Market and ensure you'll be anything but mini after you've made them part of your morning routine. ✘ No
Eater Seattle [15] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: When one just won’t do, it’s easy enough to nab a whole sack of hot mini doughnuts pulled from bubbling oil by a vintage Doughnut Robot at this famous Pike Place Market stall. ✘ No
Seattle Gay Times [16] Yes Yes ?  • Comment by EEng: Completely disagree that this is sigcov, which requires that sources address the topic directly and in detail. The only thing this article says about the subject of this article is: For 23 years Barbara Eliza has been serving up warm donuts at Seattle's biggest, busiest tourist spot, Pike Place Market. Her business, the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, caters to locals and visitors alike, as well as other market vendors who open in the early morning. Period. Everything else is details of the flag dispute. If there was more coverage of the dispute, then it might be notable, but even then that doesn't make the firm notable 'cause, ya know, WP:NOTINHERITED. But anyway the dispute isn't notable either, apparently.
 • Comment by Another Believer: I would consider this significant coverage.
 • Another comment by EEng: I cannot say that you are joking in writing that. I can only say that I hope you're joking. 		? Unknown
Chicago Tribune Yes Yes ? Reads in its entirety:"You'll see many cameras pointing through the foggy glass here. They're all trained on the "doughtnut robot", a mesmerizing contraption that plots rings of batter into the oil. Watch as the batter morphs into doughnuts as travels down the oil river like the Jungle Cruise at Disneyland, flipped once, and again a minute later, golden and bulbous onto cooling racks If you get a batch of these mini doughnuts hot from the fryer, dusted with cinnamon sugar, bite in immediately and experience an act defying physical law -- fried dough collapsing unto itself, into nothing. ? Unknown
  • checkYuser:bluerasberry approved
  • User:EEng not approved -- the idea that this description of a machine found in every donut shop in the world constitutes significant coverage of this particular shop that owns one is preposterous
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • I'll vote keep again (disclaimer: article creator). In my opinion, there's enough coverage in a variety of reputable publications to draft an entry about the business and its history, operations, and public reception. I'm a bit surprised a couple editors seem so determined to delete this article, which doesn't seem particularly harmful or problematic, but that's fine. Coverage spans 20+ years in notable publications, which are similar to those I've used for the dozens of other restaurant entries I've promoted to GA status. (shrugs) ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note, SounderBruce identified a couple additional Seattle Post-Intelligencer articles which could be added, including one which confirms the name of a former owner not currently mentioned. Editors might want to search the Seattle Times archives (I don't have a subscription), and I wouldn't be surprised if time spent in libraries would yield more book returns. I scrambled to expand this article because of the first deletion nominations, so no doubt there's more sources to fold into the mix. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The P-I sources mentioned are not focused on the stand in particular, so they would not satisfy the significant coverage criteria of GNG. SounderBruce 05:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming. I guess my point is there are other sources which don't appear in this table. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the article isn't harmful. But we have policies around what is considered notable enough for inclusion. Not everything that is mentioned in notable publications is itself notable. When I look at restaurants, I look for coverage outside the local area and outside of industry-niche publications. This doesn't seem to have any at all that isn't simply as a mention on lists, some of which include 50 entries and not even any accompanying text. A restaurant that is locally notable isn't necessarily a notable restaurant. Food sections of any major daily revue hundreds of local restaurants every year. A New York City restaurant being reviewed in the New York Times does not make that restaurant notable. I want to see it reviewed in the Chicago Tribune. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Washington. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I look at Valereee's very useful source analysis and if that's all there is, this fails GNG by quite some margin as SIGCOV just isn't there. Sorry. Schwede66 06:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said above, this table may assess the currently used sources but does not assess all available coverage. User:Valereee, User:EEng, what about this source? Could we say more about the "donut robot" based on this source? What about this list and this list? What about all the other book and magazine sources I/we can't necessarily preview via Google Books? My point is, unless editors are updating the table they may be reviewing an incomplete assessment in passing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For me the donuts book mention is about Jason and the machine. (The Donut Robot might actually be notable.) The Seattle Met source is again local coverage, and even that's again a single paragraph in a long list of similar mentions. The Thrillist is a list of 50 with a sentence about the shop and one about the robot. Valereee (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you at least mark the source assessment above as incomplete somehow? Feels disingenuous to have editors think this is ALL coverage. Clearly there are other sources not included. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I included all the sources you offered, and you'd said you'd made an exhaustive search. You can totally update the table with anything you find, that table doesn't belong to me and should be considered editable by anyone.
    The table is labelled "This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor." Valereee (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement then was re: pre-1989 history, and clearly there are many more sources to be considered. I've identified several, none of which are reflected in the table. Until someone's searched newspaper archives, online databases, library books, etc, this feels like a rush to delete an entry which is not egregiously problematic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But, AB, can I flip that around to the other side of the same coin? Why the rush to move to article space before finding the sources that could prove notability? Valereee (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I created an article about what I figure is a notable topic. Someone nominated the article for deletion, so I had to scramble to flesh out the entry. Since then, the article has been promoted to Good article status. Now we're back at AfD. The only rush on my part was the rescue during first AfD. I'm not determined to force this entry down Wikipedia's throat. This is one of those close calls re: notability and I have no problem with the community assessing whether or not the page should be kept. All I'm trying to do is insist we assess all secondary coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately, the sources breakdown above is pretty comprehensive. I checked Google Books but it seems like mostly passing mentions in food or travel guides there. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just for completion, the missing source The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin in Valereee and EEng’s source review reads In Seattle’s Pike Place Market, a tiny donut stand called Daily Dozen sells the freshest donuts you may ever buy.They drop down in a continuous stream from a Belshaw model little bigger than a toaster oven. They’re hot, greasy, and addictive. p. 72 Umimmak (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Umimmak, and that's the entire mention? Valereee (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: yeah it’s within a larger paragraph on Belshaw; these are the only sentences on Daily Dozen. I checked the index and Ctrl+F’d the ebook as well. Umimmak (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another reference has been added to the article [17] for this clickbait site Advertise with us. The reference is not-independent and fails WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 14:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying Thrillist cannot be used on Wikipedia? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that its clickbait site with very strong links to social media, that can only exist via the online advertising dollar. The Daily Dozen Doughnut Company has paid them to advertise, so the reference is not independent, more so its not significant. In both cases its fails the notability criteria of WP:SIRS, failing WP:NCORP. You might say something like "that you don't know for sure that they have paid", but nothing that on that site is self-generated. It is not a generator of textual content, like we are for example, or substack for example. Everything on that site has been paid, all of it. It is advertising platform, first and foremost to offer a service to those who want reach a mass audience. It very very light-weight content for those want to find somewhere quick to get some eats. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, ok? Sheesh, so much hostility for something as simple as "Naomi Tomky also included Daily Dozen in Thrillist's 2016 list of the 50 'best things to eat and drink' at Pike Place Market". (shrug) Unless you can point to where Thrillist has been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia, I say keep the text/ref in the entry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hostile, truly. I do a lot of these types of Afds and they tend to be the same kind of thing. I'm interested in a honest discussion. The refs are very poor, transient types with no real intellectual depth. The source table shows that. The article will be either kept by a mountain of keep votes with no interest in examaning the coverage or it will an intellectual discussion of the coverage and what it means and it will be deleted or possibly kept because they're is genuine coverage. That is what I'm aiming for. scope_creepTalk 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Well, this discussion will be most honest when the source assessment actually represents all sources used in the article as well as those which are not currently used in the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many doughnut stands in the world have "intellectually deep" (???) coverage? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AB, if you have sources that aren't used, use them and add them to the table. But honestly, why would you use sources that don't support notability and leave those that do out of the article? Valereee (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is been a concerted effort to add sources to the article since the last Afd, which has resulted in the source assessment table growing substantially, its now about three times the orginal size, yet there is still no decent coverage. scope_creepTalk 15:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is said 3-fold expansion? There's a source assessment above, and anther on the article's talk page, but I don't see any 3x expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads as a polished up advertisement with loads of quotes to hide the actual lack of content. The Banner talk 15:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve the article's text or identify problematic quotes on the article's talk page. You've commented on the entry's text, but what say you about the amount of secondary coverage the topic has received? This is AfD after all. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is beyond rescue. And yes, there is not enough in-depth secondary coverage. The Banner talk 16:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this article is beyond rescue? You've done an exhaustive search of missing sources? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) My reasons are stated above. 2) Why should I do an "exhaustive search of missing sources"? You should have done that when writing the article. The Banner talk 17:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief. The purpose of AfD is to determine if a topic has been discussed enough in secondary sourcing. If all we're doing is assessing the currently used sources, we're not doing a complete assessment. You can imply I've done wrong here but this article's already survived an AfD discussion so clearly I've not been alone in my thinking. Listen, this is a chance for the community to have a serious discussion about notability of this topic. I have no problem with this process. But if editors aren't willing to do an exhaustive search of missing sources then we're doing a disservice to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should others do the research that you were supposed to do before writing the article? Effectively, you are now criticising your own work. The Banner talk 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think asking for a complete source assessment is an unfair ask at AfD. Also, I'm doing lots of research. I've expanded the article further. I've shared more sources on the article's talk page. I've noted the source assessment table is not complete. I don't see how any of this is criticizing my own work. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:CONTN KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looking beyond the partial list of sources above (which already has a few good sources), there is just enuf significant coverage to warrant an article. Everything must be considered holistically, and to my mind there's far too much wrangling here. Sources covering a doughnut stand obviously won't have the same rigour as something much more "important": that is not to say we throw the guidelines to the wind, but let's exercise a bit more... Open-mindedness? I find the relentless campaign to delete this well-written article frankly bemusing, when soooo much more egregious and clearly GNG-insta failing things exist in this internet encyclopedia (and I'm aware I might be guilty of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or suchlike, but I just needed to get that off my chest!). Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources do you believe support a claim to notability? Valereee (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: being bemused as to why this gained attention: it was nominated at DYK. Any time an article gets to a peer review project, it's going to get more scrutiny. Valereee (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DYK articles and AfD are two different processes, but I can understand the frustration. Why vote to delete an article if it's been cleaned up and used for DYK on the front page, seems counter-productive. One side is basically keeping and improving the article, the other side is trying to delete it. Not sure how being featured in a DYK affects the notability factor here at AfD, it should count for something I'd think. Otherwise, why bother nominating an article that will get deleted anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't cleaned up. It was written from scratch without adequate sources. Yes, it's counterproductive to write an article without first determining if the subject is notable, but that's what's happened here. Valereee (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my !vote to Strong keep in light of the new sources added by the team. Kudos to Another Believer and friends! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thanks to the source analysis, we have two GNG-"sort of" sources, the rest aren't useful. Two brief semi-useful sources, I'd say we're at maybe one good one. If we had another decent source, I'd change the !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the simple fact that it was a DYK article. That has to count for something towards notability; otherwise, why make an article and get it upgraded to DYK if it's only going to get deleted. The author has to submit the article for DYK and has to make changes that various other editors suggest to make it DYK-ready. It's a frustrating process I've done myself a few times. I'm on the other side of the fence now, looking at deleting it. If we're going to keep doing this, we should really look at GNG criteria when the DYK nomination comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to add "Keep -- It appeared on DYK" to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. EEng 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, it's not "a DYK article". In fact it's because it was nominated at DYK that we ended up here. Someone during the review process raised the question of notability.
But even if it had appeared, why would that matter w/re notability? Neither DYK nor GA assess an article's notability. Even FA doesn't, but it would be highly unlikely anyone could write an FA without significant coverage. This seems like you're saying, "You can bulletproof your article from being AfD'd by nominating it for DYK". Valereee (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more to express frustration in Wikipedia policies, which isn't really what's being discussed here I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we're in agreement that your keep !vote is contrary to policy. EEng 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one policy, and it is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel like my request to evaluate all available coverage is falling on deaf ears. Does anyone have access to the Seattle Times archives? Does anyone mind searching databases similar to HighBeam Research, LexisNexis, etc? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the presented "significant coverage" table's assessment that single sentences are not significant coverage. When we are discussing complicated issues, then a single sentence is not significant coverage. In this case we are talking about a donut stand, and the global norm for media coverage of street snacks is that single sentence descriptions are rare. Of all the places in the world selling snacks, this place is 1 in a million for media coverage. This place is a counter with room for one single employee to stand and provide a few donuts at a time to a single customer. For what it is, the media coverage is extraordinary, as the world is full of shops like this which get zero media coverage. We do not need to compare this to the Wikipedia article on philosophy; we should compare it to other small businesses in Category:Doughnut shops or similar. We have single-sentence sources which give the important details which meet WP:SIGCOV - it is in prime tourist real estate, it has a weird donut robot, they serve unusual donuts in an unusual way, it has been operating for decades, and it is famous. This article passes GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing "weird" about the donut machine -- you'll find one in every donut shot in the world [18].
    • Nothing unusual about the mini donuts either ("mini" is a setting on the donut machine), nor about serving them in a paper bag.
    • "They've been operating for decades" -- you must be kidding.
    • "Famous" -- No more so than any of the other food stands listed in the endless "Things to see and eat at Pike Place" lists
EEng 19:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of vendors at Pike Place Market, past and present. I can assure you some are more famous than others. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's true. It may also be true that none of them meets WP:GNG. EEng 19:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, sure, but I'm confident some of the vendors are notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason those things are important is because reliable sources make them so by covering them significantly. It is outside the scope of Wikipedia editors to second-guess journalists for finding some things attention worthy and not others. Also, it is common sense to recognize that this particular donut shop is extraordinary among all the other ones in the world, as this one gets reviewed in many publications when others never do. This place is extraordinary and the sources establish that it is extraordinary. I confirm that you are accurately repeating the reasons why this shop is extraordinary, even if you personally seem unimpressed. I may be biased; I was in Seattle's competitive donut eating circuit for a few years and we were all crazy about this place. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
outside the scope of Wikipedia editors to second-guess journalists for finding some things attention worthy and not others – It's not whether journalists have given attention, but the level of attention that counts. For example, the many, many, many sources adduced fail, almost to a one, multiple of WP:NCORP's requirement that reviews...
Be significant: brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify. Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources. Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications.
You argument seems to come down to that we should keep this article as a gesture toward countering WP:Systemic bias against donut shops. EEng 20:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are reliable. Chicago Tribune is a small profile, and per long consensus doesn't meet WP:SIRS. It is not signicant coverage. Changing the source table doesn't change that fact. scope_creepTalk 20:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about none of these sources are reliable? Can you please share where any of the sources used in the article have been deemed unreliable? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think scope_creep really means they're not significant. EEng 20:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care which way the AfD goes, but this !vote just makes me think we maybe don't need that many articles about donut shops. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD goes the way of the deletionists, then no donut shops would have any articles, save the likes of Dunkin' Donuts! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me that I wrote the Duck Donuts article a few years back. Good thing that's not been threatened with deletion KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly, I'm on the fence about this one, I've re-read what's above and it's a split down the middle, I can see that the article is well-researched and fairly long, but most of the sources aren't extensive. I've struck both my !votes above, I'll remain neutral on this one, I'm not fussed one way or the other at this point, if it gets deleted or not. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not significant coverage per WP:SIRS. The NCORP policy was expressely updated about 5 years ago by Tony Ballioni, to strengthen it against these types of supposed references. They are not notable because they are not significant coverage. They're not long enough nor sufficiently detailed and in-depth from an intellectual viewpoint to constitute as a source. Its a case of, if your there, visit this place if your hungrary. At the best it can verify the organisation exists. You've added several refs to the article. Lets take a look at them: Ref 5. Barbara Elza. She is the business owner, and anything she says is invalid as a reference per WP:ORGIND. It is not a WP:SECONDARY source. The slogan is WP:PROMO. Ref 12 is the same. Ref 16 doesn't satisfy the WP:CORPDEPTH clause of WP:NCORP, specifically because its an Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital. The Jesse Thomson books is by a Seattle food writer, which is ultra-local. The Microsoft ref, ref 25 is quote from the owner, fails WP:ORGIND. The Serious Eats is an exercise in promotion and breaks WP:PROMO. Its by a New York writer, but it is the most basic profile that is insignificant and fails WP:SIRS. I couldn't see the rest of them. Normally per WP:SIGCOV, lots of references add up, but here all the coverage, its a great doughnut bar, eat there and that is not enough. scope_creepTalk 20:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is beautifully written, but unless there is WP:THREE references that satisfies WP:NCORP, it is a business after-all, then it would be non-notable. scope_creepTalk 20:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot wrong here which I don't have time to address right now. I'll just say the source assessment table above has 21 entries. The article has 32 sources and I've identified several others on the article's talk page, some of which require database access so I can't just paste URLs. I don't understand the point in presenting an incomplete source assessment in an AfD discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then the solution is obvious: add the sources to the table, with quotations so we can all see exactly what's said and judge it for ourselves. EEng 23:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daily_Dozen_Doughnut_Company_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1127121945"