Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonut

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) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonut[edit]

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

Ephemeral trivia. Anmccaff (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Too Soon. Only time will tell if the wonut is as notable as other unique pastry crossovers, like the cronut. Too soon to tell. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources seem to indicate WP:GNG is met, plus remember WP:NTEMP -that it was mostly discussed between April and May 2014 does not mean it stops being notable in 2016. Also, that a source discusses it, albeit briefly, in 2016, indicates some evidence of ongoing notability. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources. Although they might have been ephemeral, the amount of attention devoted to this seems to be enough.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], Donut Nation, pp. 158–159, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, although some of the article references may be deemed unsuitable for notability and/or be "local", it has enough to get over the notability line and with above sources listed by Northamerica1000 easily exceeds it. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2016 (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.