Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
+ |
kinder, gentler |
||
Line 352: | Line 352: | ||
*:Also, I've now updated the source assessment table above with my comments, which I made in the source assessment table on the Talk page, which weren't reflected there previously. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 12:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
*:Also, I've now updated the source assessment table above with my comments, which I made in the source assessment table on the Talk page, which weren't reflected there previously. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 12:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
*::Finally, I would point to the [https://archive.org/details/seriouseatscompr0000levi/page/262/mode/2up ''Serious Eats'' book], which features Daily Dozen Doughnut Company as '''one of its top 6 doughnut makers nationwide''' in a chapter dedicated to donuts. Even though it is also written in a bit of a pop foodie tone, the review also alludes to '''a key competitor''' (rival for popularity within Seattle), a key fact I would always want to know about any company, and hints at '''a downside of the donuts''', which is that the production process may make them slightly more oily. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
*::Finally, I would point to the [https://archive.org/details/seriouseatscompr0000levi/page/262/mode/2up ''Serious Eats'' book], which features Daily Dozen Doughnut Company as '''one of its top 6 doughnut makers nationwide''' in a chapter dedicated to donuts. Even though it is also written in a bit of a pop foodie tone, the review also alludes to '''a key competitor''' (rival for popularity within Seattle), a key fact I would always want to know about any company, and hints at '''a downside of the donuts''', which is that the production process may make them slightly more oily. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::I've got no hesitation, at the point, in saying you're blatantly lying, as you have elsewhere as well. ''Serious Eats'' says absolutely nothing about Daily Dozen being, as you put it, "one of its top 6 doughnut makers nationwide". All there is is a headline on a page reading: "A half-dozen doughnuts we love", followed by a list of shops. Period. And BTW, the book's description reads "A foodie's guide culled from the popular SeriousEats.com online community" -- in other words, it's user-generated content. Jesus, what poppycock. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
:::::I've got no hesitation, at the point, in saying <del>you're blatantly lying</del> <ins>you appear to have examined the sources without benefit of your reading glasses</ins>, as you have elsewhere as well. ''Serious Eats'' says absolutely nothing about Daily Dozen being, as you put it, "one of its top 6 doughnut makers nationwide". All there is is a headline on a page reading: "A half-dozen doughnuts we love", followed by a list of shops. Period. And BTW, the book's description reads "A foodie's guide culled from the popular SeriousEats.com online community" -- in other words, it's user-generated content. Jesus, what poppycock. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::::But it's been edited by Ed Levine and the ''Serious Eats'' editorial team before being compiled in a book. So no, it's not the equivalent of straight user-generated content online. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 22:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
::::::But it's been edited by Ed Levine and the ''Serious Eats'' editorial team before being compiled in a book. So no, it's not the equivalent of straight user-generated content online. [[User:Cielquiparle|Cielquiparle]] ([[User talk:Cielquiparle|talk]]) 22:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::No, that is absolutely and patently incorrect. Highking has been shown many many times, that he has the correct interpretation of [[WP:NCORP]] as he is a specialist in that area. To say otherwise would break [[WP:AGF]]. Your interpretation was the reason that NCORP was rewritten 5-6 years ago, in the first place. NCORP reflects exactly via [[WP:SIRS]] what is [[WP:GNG]], namely secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Its the same case as somebody talking about the subject to somebody else, who are not connected to the original subject. So what the company does, is much much less important than what people say about, as its self-generated information from the company. Stuff that comes from the company is primary. That attitude you have, regarding "major events" was the orginal consensus in 2017 but that is no longer consensus, now. So your essentially putting yourself outside established consensus which is the wrong place to be. Lastly, robotic machines are very common, all over the world. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 13:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
::::No, that is absolutely and patently incorrect. Highking has been shown many many times, that he has the correct interpretation of [[WP:NCORP]] as he is a specialist in that area. To say otherwise would break [[WP:AGF]]. Your interpretation was the reason that NCORP was rewritten 5-6 years ago, in the first place. NCORP reflects exactly via [[WP:SIRS]] what is [[WP:GNG]], namely secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Its the same case as somebody talking about the subject to somebody else, who are not connected to the original subject. So what the company does, is much much less important than what people say about, as its self-generated information from the company. Stuff that comes from the company is primary. That attitude you have, regarding "major events" was the orginal consensus in 2017 but that is no longer consensus, now. So your essentially putting yourself outside established consensus which is the wrong place to be. Lastly, robotic machines are very common, all over the world. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 13:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:56, 14 December 2022
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)
- 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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 |
Eater Seattle [3] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
? 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.• ![]()
|
? Unknown |
Vancouver Sun [7] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() It's home to such venerable establishments as the Daily Dozen Doughnut Co., where owner Barbara Elza processes 16 kilograms of flour daily in her doughnut robot. Children crowd round Elza's booth to watch as the tiny doughnuts travel along an oily road in rows of four before plopping down at their destinations -- a tin display plate. |
✘ No |
Seattle Post-Intelligencer [8] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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 Appétit america-s-best-donuts-part-2 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Pike Place Market Recipes [9] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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 alikeand 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() "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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() "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 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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 in Seattle Before You Die [12] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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] | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() 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 News [16] | ![]() |
![]() |
? • 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.Comment by Cielquiparle: Completely disagree with the above. • ![]() EEng says: Unfortunate that you invoked NCORP, which specifically lists, under Examples of trivial coverage, coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies. Oh well, try again. |
? Unknown |
Chicago Tribune | ![]() |
![]() |
? 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. • ![]() • 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 • ![]() Strongly disagree with EEng. I will add this to the article now, but the point is, a key argument for notability is precisely this: That Daily Dozen Doughnut Company is one of the key examples of the classic early model Donut Machines, per at least two of the donut-focused books. EEng still not approved, and it's always amusing when sources are preposterously misrepresented It's not a "classic early model donut machine", but merely (as already mentioned) the company's current bestseller [17], and there's nothing to indicate that Daily Dozen is some "key example" -- above (as already mentioned) is the entirety of what the source says about the company. |
? Unknown |
Donuts by John T. Edge, pp. 30–35 | ![]() |
![]() |
? • ![]() • Above strained hyperbole thoroughly demolished below at #edge. |
? Unknown |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Valereee I like the Serious Eats book review precisely for this reason. It includes Daily Dozen Doughnut Company as one of only six doughnuts in a chapter on donuts nationwide. Another key difference in our approaches, though, which possibly cannot be reconciled, is that you are looking at this as an expert in restaurant coverage, whereas I am looking at this from the standpoint of whether or not this organization is also a notable part of local history or even industry history. To me, it is, and the article should be kept for that reason. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I didn't realize there were two different source assessment tables! I have now ported my comments from the other source table over to this one. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- @Umimmak, and that's the entire mention? Valereee (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- @Umimmak, and that's the entire mention? Valereee (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Another reference has been added to the article [18] for this clickbait site Advertise with us. The reference is not-independent and fails WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 14:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- You're saying Thrillist cannot be used on Wikipedia? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- How many doughnut stands in the world have "intellectually deep" (???) coverage? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Another Believer: I missed this. From the previous Afd. The table is now three times the size. It could be four times the size if I added those non-rs refs that you have added to the article. scope_creepTalk 10:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Which sources do you believe support a claim to notability? Valereee (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Deletethanks 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)
Weak Keepfor 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)- Someone needs to add "Keep -- It appeared on DYK" to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. EEng 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- So we're in agreement that your keep !vote is contrary to policy. EEng 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is only one policy, and it is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- So we're in agreement that your keep !vote is contrary to policy. EEng 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- I've expanded the article further with coverage from The Seattle Times, The Oregonian, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Puget Sound Business Journal, and Bon Appétit. I've also shared a few more sources on the article's talk page (The Baltimore Sun, Travel + Leisure, Irish Examiner). ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- There's nothing "weird" about the donut machine -- you'll find one in every donut shot in the world [19].
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In theory, sure, but I'm confident some of the vendors are notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Being confident some thing or things are notable, without having sources in hand to back that up, is why we're in this mess. EEng 04:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- In theory, sure, but I'm confident some of the vendors are notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I think scope_creep really means they're not significant. EEng 20:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I find it a bit strange that you keep accusing other people of being deletionists, @Kingoflettuce. Your AfD stats show that for most of your delete votes, the result ended as keep. (But in fact your overall hit rate at AfD is less than 50%, so maybe it's just that you're not assessing notability very well in general.) Valereee (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lol Valereee those are very skewed stats coz of a impetuous string of noms from 2016 (but just LOOK at the actual articles and tell me if we're comparing like with like here). Give me a break... It's a really a shame that you think dissecting a well-written article to DEATH and pulling out all the stats and blue-links in the world will actually make the encyclopedia a better place. No net good will come out of this AfD, and instead there'll just be lots of time wasted on both sides. Which is why I usually don't dabble in AfDs, it's a cesspool of teeth-gnashing wranglers. Congrats on deleting this article, hooray. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your hit rate from 2017 forward isn't much better. The article isn't deleted yet, and I don't take any joy in AfDing someone's good-faith work. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lol Valereee those are very skewed stats coz of a impetuous string of noms from 2016 (but just LOOK at the actual articles and tell me if we're comparing like with like here). Give me a break... It's a really a shame that you think dissecting a well-written article to DEATH and pulling out all the stats and blue-links in the world will actually make the encyclopedia a better place. No net good will come out of this AfD, and instead there'll just be lots of time wasted on both sides. Which is why I usually don't dabble in AfDs, it's a cesspool of teeth-gnashing wranglers. Congrats on deleting this article, hooray. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Then so be it: WP:N is WP:N. Of course, you can always make a proposal for WP:NDONUTSHOP if you wish. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Bluerasberry, one sentence just simply isn't sigcov, and unless that sentence provides some indication of cultural importance, it doesn't support notability. I get it; I write a lot about food and restaurants. It can be frustrating when you just know a place must be notable but you can't prove it to WP's satisfaction. This shop is definitely locally notable. I suspect in the end -- maybe not now, maybe later when someone can get to a library -- we'll be able to show that it's notable. But the only way I'd accept a single sentence as an indication of notability in the absence of sigcov is if some super reliable source was saying, "The Daily Dozen's donuts have traditionally been served at Seattle weddings and bar mitzvahs since 1970; the absence of these donuts is typically considered insulting to the guests." Or something like that. And in the case of a US food, it's exceedingly unlikely that something like that wouldn't have generated actual sigcov. We see that in the developing world, not in the US where food journalism and academic study is huge. Valereee (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I much prefer this comment to your mentioning of "hit rates" as if that means anything. FWIW, I don't consider you a "D" (and didn't know it wuz pejorative, sorry, just thought it reflected obvious tendencies!) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Re: "I suspect in the end -- maybe not now, maybe later when someone can get to a library -- we'll be able to show that it's notable." Gah! This is so frustrating to read... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- EEng 19:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Please keep this nice article. It's well-written and has lots of sources. Deletion would be pointless and silly after all the work that went into it. Ann Teak (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ann Teak you can't make statements like that, they'll be instantly discredited by the righteous defenders of policy KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was under the impression this is an encyclopedia, not a rule-based game. Ann Teak (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you must be in the wrong place because it clearly says "Wikipedia, The Free Rules-based Game" on the main page. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop. That is a newbie you are talking to. Valereee (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Even sarcasm has to be policed here, huh. If it wasn't patently clear enuf from the rest of my comments here, I wholeheartedly agree with what Ann Teak is saying (and what does it really matter if they're a "newbie" or not? I certainly didn't know or care about that. I thought even a "newbie" would have picked up on sarcasm, but clearly not...) This is getting tiresome, just savour your deletion victory and let's all move on... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop. That is a newbie you are talking to. Valereee (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you must be in the wrong place because it clearly says "Wikipedia, The Free Rules-based Game" on the main page. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was under the impression this is an encyclopedia, not a rule-based game. Ann Teak (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ann Teak you can't make statements like that, they'll be instantly discredited by the righteous defenders of policy KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The company has been reviewed in national and international publications from the perspective of food criticism. I would consider coverage in the Chicago Tribune and the Vancouver Sun particularly significant given that they are not regional publications, and its inclusion in a book on a history of the donut provides some notability as well.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Huh. Well, let's look more closely at the three sources you've invoked:
- The Chicago Tribune says
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.
– That's what you call a "particularly significant" review "from the perspective of food criticism"? Really??? - The Vancouver Sun tell us that Pike Place is
home to such venerable establishments as the Daily Dozen Doughnut Co., where owner Barbara Elza processes 16 kilograms of flour daily in her doughnut robot. Children crowd round Elza's booth to watch as the tiny doughnuts travel along an oily road in rows of four before plopping down at their destinations -- a tin display plate.
– Again, that's a "particularly significant" review "from the perspective of food criticism"? Are you kidding? - The "book on a history of the donut" tells us that
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
– That's significant coverage???
- The Chicago Tribune says
- EEng 04:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please either WP:AGF regarding @4meter4's contribution or consider your point made and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jahaza (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you think I'm questioning 4m4's good faith, and appreciate your confirming that my points are made. EEng 03:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please either WP:AGF regarding @4meter4's contribution or consider your point made and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jahaza (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Huh. Well, let's look more closely at the three sources you've invoked:
- Delete. If two short write-ups in newspapers of various importance means it passes, then SIGCOV basically means nothing at all. No, this sourcing is very poor, and this reading of our policy, sorry rules, sorry guidelines, whatever, is an invitation to open the gates. Wait: it's an article on a small local restaurant, inflated out of proportion--that explains the genesis of the article. I hope that my favorite non-notable restaurants are next--Hamburger King and Viva Boema. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- When you say "two short write-ups", are you referring to the lat two rows of the source assessment table above? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, it's actually one write-up--the article from the Seattle Gay Times isn't significant coverage on the topic. It's not even coverage. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- You do realize the source assessment table is incomplete, right? There are other sources to consider than just these. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- You do realize you could add sources to the table right? This is, like, the fourth time you've complained about this without doing anything to remedy it. EEng 00:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you realize how fucking condescending you sound? Drmies (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Now wait a second, Drmies, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to being fucking condescending e.g. [20]. I resent you telling A.B. they're fucking condescending without giving me even a ritual nod. EEng 00:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- EEng, I've been adding sources to the article, which to me is more important than expanding to the source assessment table above. Others are assessing and sharing additional sources on the article's talk page. I'm less inclined to get involved when editors are working in two places at once. I've made a few formatting changes to the above table for readability purposes but I'm letting others use that if helpful. Also, Drmies, I don't mean to be condescending. Your comment fed right into my "fear" (not really) that editors might look at the source assessment table without considering references not included. I'm kinda over this whole thing so I'll let others take over from here. Happy editing, folks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- OK--thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- EEng, I've been adding sources to the article, which to me is more important than expanding to the source assessment table above. Others are assessing and sharing additional sources on the article's talk page. I'm less inclined to get involved when editors are working in two places at once. I've made a few formatting changes to the above table for readability purposes but I'm letting others use that if helpful. Also, Drmies, I don't mean to be condescending. Your comment fed right into my "fear" (not really) that editors might look at the source assessment table without considering references not included. I'm kinda over this whole thing so I'll let others take over from here. Happy editing, folks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Now wait a second, Drmies, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to being fucking condescending e.g. [20]. I resent you telling A.B. they're fucking condescending without giving me even a ritual nod. EEng 00:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- You do realize the source assessment table is incomplete, right? There are other sources to consider than just these. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, it's actually one write-up--the article from the Seattle Gay Times isn't significant coverage on the topic. It's not even coverage. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- When you say "two short write-ups", are you referring to the lat two rows of the source assessment table above? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Observation. I wonder if there's a culinary culture difference here between America and Britain and maybe also a generation gap. Blimey - a donut robot! Two-a-penny here in the UK. Commonly found in seaside resorts and mobile "carts" (as Americans call them). The donuts/doughnuts produced are generally viewed disparagingly as typical junk food. It's unlikely such a business of this nature would be considered suitable material for an encyclopedic article. But, overcoming my bias, I ask whether such a business is now rare in the States, (though I would think common say, 50 years ago). If this business is one of the last of its kind; it could be notable and explain why it receives a lot of press attention. Just a thought. Rupples (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's the thing: it did not receive a lot of press attention. What we see in the article is not a lot. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- For some strange reason people in Seattle have never read Homer Price#Homer_Price and think there's only one doughnut machine in the world. EEng 03:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is a classic case of 100 trivial not adding to significance. Almost every source is a faux "review" failing -- miserably -- the criteria spelled out in WP:NCORP for a review to be considered significant coverage:
- 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 ... 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 ... For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as significant coverage.
- Almost every source fails two or three of the above criteria, and many of them fail all four. EEng 04:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - so the quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant, we're looking solely at the quality of content. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. I cannot disagree with the source analysis above and the comment by EEng that 100 trivial snippets doesn't add up to significance is also relevant. Since *none* of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- WP:GNG takes precedence over all other specific notability guidelines. Even if this narrowly fails NCORP, it is without a doubt a generally notable doughnut stand. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: By consensus, WP:NCORP applies to companies since 2017, not WP:GNG. Keep that in mind. If your going around saying it to folk, you need to stop doing it now. scope_creepTalk 13:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- you're*, since we're in the company of pedants KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: By consensus, WP:NCORP applies to companies since 2017, not WP:GNG. Keep that in mind. If your going around saying it to folk, you need to stop doing it now. scope_creepTalk 13:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added a couple of comments to the table. I have a long-running disagreement with HighKing which has to do with interpretation of WP:NCORP; it may simply be that we just have two different irreconcilable interpretations of the guideline. In my book, particularly with regard to analysis of a company's history, in-depth coverage of what the company does and major events such as a prolonged controversy absolutely should count toward notability of an organization, particularly one with over 25 years of history. For this reason, the Seattle Gay News article about the company's long-running dispute about displaying a gay pride banner at Pike Place Market (well before they became mainstream) absolutely should count toward notability. In addition to this. the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company has historical significance precisely because it is one of the prominent examples of a Donut Robot Mark II machine from Belshaw Brothers, produced in the 1930s, in operation and visible to the public. This is explained in two of the books focused on donuts and donut making. One is the 2006 book Donuts by John T. Edge, which devotes several pages to the example of Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, as well as the 2014 book The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin by Michael Krondl. Furthermore, I would like to add, from the start I have been critical of the overly exuberant tone of this article. It has improved somewhat over time, but I have now found more critical comments about the doughnuts, which I will be adding shortly to the article! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's hard to know which part of this post is the most ridiculous:
analysis of a company's history
– The entirety of the company's history (visible in the article, anyway) isOperated by Barbara Elza since c. 1989 ... Previously, the business was owned by Todd Collins ... In 1997, the shop was processing 16 kilograms of flour daily
. (Very grand to call this "analysis", BTW.)in-depth coverage of what the company does
– The entirety of that in-depth coverage of what the company does isserves small doughnuts from a stall in the Economy Market building at Pike Place Market in Seattle's Central Waterfront district. Varieties have included plain, cinnamon, sugar, and chocolate with sprinkles
.long-running dispute about displaying a gay pride banner
– If you'd actually read the sources, you'd know that there's nothing long-running about it at all. For several years Elza displayed the flag during June in recognition of Pride Month, with no issue. Then one year she didn't take it down at the end of the month, after which the landlord, historical commission, and so on objected. There was some discussion between July and September, and in October Seattle Gay News carried an article about the issue, which was apparently resolved somehow -- but we don't know how since there's been no other coverage. That's not a "long-running dispute", but rather what WP:NCORP lists under Examples of trivial coverage as "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies".prominent examples of a Donut Robot Mark II machine from Belshaw Brothers, produced in the 1930s, in operation and visible to the public
– On reflection this is the most ridiculous of your claims. You seem to think the Donut Robot Mark II is some kind of amazing antique "produced in the 1930s". It's not. Its the manufacturer's most popular (and completely current) model, found in donut shops all over the world [21]. Here's a man from the 21st century (not the 1930s) showing how to use it [22]. As for "visible to the public", this is apparently common, since the manufacturer hype exclaims "With a Donut Robot you can make donuts in a back room, or in front of customers!"
- EEng 20:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the long-running dispute: The dispute started in June 2009. The Pike Place Development Authority told Elza of Daily Doughnut to take the pride banner down. The Stranger caught wind of it and all hell broke loose: The PDA got flooded with angry phone calls. Elza had to negotiate the right to put the pride banner up for June each year. So yes, the dispute happened once, was temporarily resolved, then bubbled up again three years later in July 2012 when she didn't take it down. In the meantime, one of the other vendors was likely complaining about the banner. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- And regarding the Donut Robot Mark II machine: The manufacturer uses the fact that you could use the machine to demonstrate the donuts in front of customers as a selling point. Great. The fact is, Daily Dozen Doughnut Company is often cited as a well-known example of the machine on full display, at a high-traffic tourist destination. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's hard to know which part of this post is the most ridiculous:
- Also, I've now updated the source assessment table above with my comments, which I made in the source assessment table on the Talk page, which weren't reflected there previously. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Finally, I would point to the Serious Eats book, which features Daily Dozen Doughnut Company as one of its top 6 doughnut makers nationwide in a chapter dedicated to donuts. Even though it is also written in a bit of a pop foodie tone, the review also alludes to a key competitor (rival for popularity within Seattle), a key fact I would always want to know about any company, and hints at a downside of the donuts, which is that the production process may make them slightly more oily. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've got no hesitation, at the point, in saying
you're blatantly lyingyou appear to have examined the sources without benefit of your reading glasses, as you have elsewhere as well. Serious Eats says absolutely nothing about Daily Dozen being, as you put it, "one of its top 6 doughnut makers nationwide". All there is is a headline on a page reading: "A half-dozen doughnuts we love", followed by a list of shops. Period. And BTW, the book's description reads "A foodie's guide culled from the popular SeriousEats.com online community" -- in other words, it's user-generated content. Jesus, what poppycock. EEng 20:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)- But it's been edited by Ed Levine and the Serious Eats editorial team before being compiled in a book. So no, it's not the equivalent of straight user-generated content online. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've got no hesitation, at the point, in saying
- No, that is absolutely and patently incorrect. Highking has been shown many many times, that he has the correct interpretation of WP:NCORP as he is a specialist in that area. To say otherwise would break WP:AGF. Your interpretation was the reason that NCORP was rewritten 5-6 years ago, in the first place. NCORP reflects exactly via WP:SIRS what is WP:GNG, namely secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Its the same case as somebody talking about the subject to somebody else, who are not connected to the original subject. So what the company does, is much much less important than what people say about, as its self-generated information from the company. Stuff that comes from the company is primary. That attitude you have, regarding "major events" was the orginal consensus in 2017 but that is no longer consensus, now. So your essentially putting yourself outside established consensus which is the wrong place to be. Lastly, robotic machines are very common, all over the world. scope_creepTalk 13:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the context and your interpretation. Agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is not interpretation, it is experience, actually been and read and took part in thousands of Afd with Highking, so that won't wash. scope_creepTalk 13:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- "thousands" KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, I actually also often agree with HighKing, and I think it's probably mutually frustrating when we don't agree, so I really did mean this in the most respectful way possible. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- HighKing = 3524 AfDs, 92% hit rate. Scope creep = 3750 AfDs, 88% hit rate. So yeah, not unlikely they've participated in a couple thousand of the same AfDs. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should still welcome new participants to AfD, though. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Of course we welcome new participants at AfD, just as we welcome them anywhere. What we'd like is if they'd learn policy. One great way to do that is to listen to the policy arguments of those who've done this literally hundreds of time more often than you have.
- The use of the term "deletionist", unless someone describes themselves that way, is an assumption of bad faith, and accusations of it are counterproductive. This isn't a battleground, it's a collaborative project. There's also actually a pretty easy way to make sure your articles aren't AfD'd: find the sources to support notability first. Valereee (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee Who used the "d" word? I certainly didn't. What is this even about? Cielquiparle (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should still welcome new participants to AfD, though. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- "thousands" KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is not interpretation, it is experience, actually been and read and took part in thousands of Afd with Highking, so that won't wash. scope_creepTalk 13:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the context and your interpretation. Agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comments re Donuts by Edge, my comment pasted from Talk:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company:
- As I read it the things we learn about Daily Dozen are: it's at
Seattle's Pike Place Market
, there'ssmells of frying dough and cinnamon
, there arebright lights above
, the employee usesmetal tongs, snatching donuts from a glazing carousel connected to a conveyor belt cooker
, there isan espresso machine
,white paper bags
contain each customer's order of doughnuts, it has aDonut Robot Mark II
(and there's a bit about that, but this is an article about the Daily Dozen not the Donut Robot Mark II), and that the author views the Daily Dozen as amarket shebang
. - There's also a bit of a profile of an employee who works there, we learn he's a
one-man band who works the Daily Dozen stand
, and information about how he wears his hairkeeps his black hair long and spiky
, what bands he likeshe bops his head to the sounds of a favorite band—say local faves Hellshock or the irrepressible Dead Kennedys
, what accessories he hasa studded dog collar around his neck and longer amulet-style studded collars on each wrist
, what stickers are on his boomboxKEEP MUSIC EVIL
, what instruments he ownsI got a drum kind, but I don't know what to do with it
, his relationship statusand resumes a conversation with a friend. "Yeah, man, I'm engaged," he says.
, his plans for the wedding"I love her. But I'm pretty sure whatever we do for a wedding won't be legal. We're talking about having a goat sacrifice at the ceremony."
, but that's all kind of besides the point, but I have a much better picture of this one employee than the business as a whole.
- As I read it the things we learn about Daily Dozen are: it's at
- Delete per nom, EEng, and others. The article is filled with unencyclopedic fluff and is more approriate for a travel guide. Sources do not show in-depth coverage, most are local and/or minor mentions. Minor mentions in review sites are routine coverage. Does not pass WP:NCORP. MB 20:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - The only unique thing about this donut shop seems to be its location within the market. Otherwise it seems very run-of-the-mill, and definitely lacks significant coverage to establish general notability. I would also ask that other restaurant articles be reviewed for notability, as there seems to be far too many that rely on coverage from listicles published by Thrillist and Eater (both of whom have loose editorial standards). SounderBruce 20:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Instead of going after restaurant entries, I'd suggest starting discussions about these sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yes, I use Eater and Thrillist for restaurant articles and plan to continue doing so until either's deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is the first time I've seen these sources questioned and I've been writing restaurant entries for quite a while now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Eat - The sourcing is bland and undercooked, too dry for my taste, lacking savory detail, but the doughnuts are delicious. Levivich (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep: has long-lasting notable coverage in reliable publications. Will attempt to expand and cite further, though I shouldn't have to; this article is better-referenced than many DYKs. ɱ (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- So completly ignoring the source analysis that has done up to this point. scope_creepTalk 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your analysis is not my analysis, each of which will be seemingly different from those created above. I can analyze sources myself, thank you. ɱ (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- So completly ignoring the source analysis that has done up to this point. scope_creepTalk 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding the reference: "Donuts by John T. Edge, pp. 30–35" added to the table above. In the book at [23] it is clear it a "passing mention" and fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND. Instead the whole 5 pages are devoted to the description of the "Donut Robot Mark II" described in detail. Looking at it, its not vintage piece of kit. Anybody can buy one right now at [24] for $10k. So while there is some historical value in these machines (and it would be nice to see a real article on vintage catering equipment, for example), there is nothing in the references that prove the establishment is notable, enough to pass WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 22:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the Seattle Gay Times references, it an interview with the owner, putting up a pride flag. It fails WP:ORGIND, because it is not independent of the organisation.It is the business owner talking. It is not a WP:SECONDARY reference. The best you can say, again, is that it verifies the company exists and that is it. scope_creepTalk 22:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- A news article does not fail independence because the subject of the story is interviewed, even extensively. While the article largely presents the owner's views, it does not do so exclusively, incorporating quotations from others as well as third-person reportage. It's not simply an interview with questions and responses. Jahaza (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the Seattle Gay Times references, it an interview with the owner, putting up a pride flag. It fails WP:ORGIND, because it is not independent of the organisation.It is the business owner talking. It is not a WP:SECONDARY reference. The best you can say, again, is that it verifies the company exists and that is it. scope_creepTalk 22:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Merge selectively to Pike_Place_Market#Dining_and_drinking. Sources in the article (such as Pang, Kevin (August 4, 2013). "The heart of Seattle: Pike Place Market brims with good food options". Chicago Tribune. p. 8; and Balla, Lesley (2019-06-05). "The Culinary Wonders of Seattle's Pike Place Market". Eater) seem to support some content being retained. Based on my review of sources, I do not think there is sufficient independent coverage per the WP:NCORP guideline to support a standalone article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per source reviews in this discussion that show GNG has not been demonstrated. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Pike Place Market appears to be appropriate. The puzzling thing about this article and notability is that there are so many laudatory references to the place as famous, well known, exceptional, etc. despite the fact that it seems to be a completely standard donut stand, with none of the sources saying anything about what makes it special or unique. Jahaza (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- A merge (of perhaps a single sentence) would be a great alternative to outright deletion. However, the Pike Place article reads like a guidebook and needs a machete taken to it. Here's a sample:
While one can easily graze one's way through the Market food stalls and shops, the Pike Place Market offers numerous other eating (and drinking) options. The once endemic workingmen's and sailors' taverns are gone; at roughly opposite corners of the Market, the Virginia Inn (founded as Virginia Bar, approximately 1908; operated as a cardroom during Prohibition, then Virginia Inn; passed into current management 1980 and slowly gentrified) and Place Pigalle (originally Lotus Inn, name dates from 1950s, remodeled 1982) retain their names, but both have gone upmarket. The Athenian Inn in the Main Market traces its history back to a 1909 bakery and is a relatively ungentrified bar and restaurant. Three Girls Bakery dates back to 1912 and may have been the first Seattle business started by women. While it is not in its original Corner Market location, no longer bakes on premises, and its current owner Jack Levy is a man, it still sells a vast variety of baked goods, does a brisk business in takeaway sandwiches, and has an old-style lunch counter.For a different type of dining experience, The Pink Door (founded 1981), entered by a nearly unmarked door on upper Post Alley, is a favorite first-date restaurant, with solid Italian food, a fantasia of a dining room ...
- EEng 03:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- A merge (of perhaps a single sentence) would be a great alternative to outright deletion. However, the Pike Place article reads like a guidebook and needs a machete taken to it. Here's a sample: