Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Donuts

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Donuts

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

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

Per recommendation from the author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boar's Breath. Cannot find any significant non-local coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and California. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FINALLY! S&%t's starting to make sense around here! Incidentally, I initially believed, when I started writing articles on local businesses, that you needed at least 1 "outside the area" source in order for it to stick. THEN, before writing this article, I read somewhere that purely local sources were OK because they were still independent from the main topic, or something. Now it turns out there was this big brou-ha-ha back at the beginning of May about this very thing, now I don't know WHAT to believe. Listen, I enjoy writing articles on local businesses (especially ones in my area/that I'm familiar with), I just wish you guys would come up with SOMETHING that tells me what local businesses are notable enough for an article. If it's none of them, fine, I'll look for other areas to contribute to. Americanfreedom (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a few good in-depth reliable sources, with at least one applicable to a large/outside audience. In practice, it varies based on what people consider to be local, regional, etc. in a given case and who shows up to !vote in these discussions. The way people interpret these requirements varies somewhat, and some places have a higher concentration of folks who interpret the guidelines in stricter or looser ways, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! That sounds good! Thanks for the reply and sorry for sounding flippant and PO'd in my response, it's been something that's been stuck in my craw (so to speak) since I started writing about these things.Americanfreedom (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find and reliable sources of significant coverage. Fails GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. 159.196.171.101 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 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.