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

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company

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

• 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]			bare mention	✘ No
Thrillist [2]			one of a list	✘ No
Seattle Eater [3]			one para	✘ No
Fodor's Seattle [4]			bare mention	✘ No
[5]			Does not appear to mention the subject	✘ No
Sunset [6]			one of a list, one para	✘ No
Serious Eats [7]			one para	✘ No
Vancouver Sun [8]			bare mention	✘ No
Seattle Post-Intelligencer [9]			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	AGF	AGF	single sentence	✘ No
Seattle Weekly	AGF	AGF		✘ No
Bon Appetit [10]			one item in a list so long it was created in two parts Not on the list of best donuts, rather a subsequent list of 57 donut shops readers wrote in about, angry their favorite shop wasn't on the first list.	✘ No
Pike Place Market Recipes [11]	AGF	AGF	bare mentions	✘ No
KOMO-TV [12]			really not even a bare mention, just identifying shop owner commenting on a completely different topic: "This is cheating. When you misrepresent yourself, you're cheating," said Barbara Elza, owner of Daily Dozen Donut Company, a Pike Place Market mainstay for nearly 30 years. "I don't even have enough to meet my expenses this month, let alone stash something offshore." Side comment by EEng: Putting this source in the article is cheating. When you misrepresent a source like this, as if it has anything at all to do with the subject of the article, it's cheating.	✘ No
The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin [13]			? Can't access	? Unknown
Food Lovers Guide to Seattle			~ Reads in its entirety: A doughnut shop that has been around for over 20 years and still has a line almost all day long, the charm of this place is in its simplicity: fresh, hot mini doughnuts served in a brown paper bag, heating the roof of your mouth on a chilly day, the aroma taunting you as you wait in line. The doughnuts come in dozens or half dozens. The flavors are plain, powdered, cinnamon, or sprinkled (chocolate fudge with sprinkles). The powdered sugar and sprinkled come cold, but the other two come hot.	~ Partial
100 things to do [14]			Very short mention	✘ No
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Have you tried all 26 of these iconic Seattle bites? [15]			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 [16]			one sentence	✘ No
Eater Seattle			one sentence	✘ No
Seattle Gay Times [17]			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.	✔ Yes
Error: a source must be specified				? 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)[reply]

  I should also note, SounderBruce identified a couple additional Seattle Post-Intelligencer articles which could be added, including one which confirms the name of a former owner not currently mentioned. Editors might want to search the Seattle Times archives (I don't have a subscription), and I wouldn't be surprised if time spent in libraries would yield more book returns. I scrambled to expand this article because of the first deletion nominations, so no doubt there's more sources to fold into the mix. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The P-I sources mentioned are not focused on the stand in particular, so they would not satisfy the significant coverage criteria of GNG. SounderBruce 05:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for confirming. I guess my point is there are other sources which don't appear in this table. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course the article isn't harmful. But we have policies around what is considered notable enough for inclusion. Not everything that is mentioned in notable publications is itself notable. When I look at restaurants, I look for coverage outside the local area and outside of industry-niche publications. This doesn't seem to have any at all that isn't simply as a mention on lists, some of which include 50 entries and not even any accompanying text. A restaurant that is locally notable isn't necessarily a notable restaurant. Food sections of any major daily revue hundreds of local restaurants every year. A New York City restaurant being reviewed in the New York Times does not make that restaurant notable. I want to see it reviewed in the Chicago Tribune. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Washington. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I look at Valereee's very useful source analysis and if that's all there is, this fails GNG by quite some margin as SIGCOV just isn't there. Sorry. Schwede66 06:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already said above, this table may assess the currently used sources but does not assess all available coverage. User:Valereee, User:EEng, what about this source? Could we say more about the "donut robot" based on this source? What about this list and this list? What about all the other book and magazine sources I/we can't necessarily preview via Google Books? My point is, unless editors are updating the table they may be reviewing an incomplete assessment in passing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For me the donuts book mention is about Jason and the machine. (The Donut Robot might actually be notable.) The Seattle Met source is again local coverage, and even that's again a single paragraph in a long list of similar mentions. The Thrillist is a list of 50 with a sentence about the shop and one about the robot. Valereee (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you at least mark the source assessment above as incomplete somehow? Feels disingenuous to have editors think this is ALL coverage. Clearly there are other sources not included. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I included all the sources you offered, and you'd said you'd made an exhaustive search. You can totally update the table with anything you find, that table doesn't belong to me and should be considered editable by anyone.

  The table is labelled "This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor." Valereee (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My statement then was re: pre-1989 history, and clearly there are many more sources to be considered. I've identified several, none of which are reflected in the table. Until someone's searched newspaper archives, online databases, library books, etc, this feels like a rush to delete an entry which is not egregiously problematic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But, AB, can I flip that around to the other side of the same coin? Why the rush to move to article space before finding the sources that could prove notability? Valereee (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I created an article about what I figure is a notable topic. Someone nominated the article for deletion, so I had to scramble to flesh out the entry. Since then, the article has been promoted to Good article status. Now we're back at AfD. The only rush on my part was the rescue during first AfD. I'm not determined to force this entry down Wikipedia's throat. This is one of those close calls re: notability and I have no problem with the community assessing whether or not the page should be kept. All I'm trying to do is insist we assess all secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately, the sources breakdown above is pretty comprehensive. I checked Google Books but it seems like mostly passing mentions in food or travel guides there. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: just for completion, the missing source The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin in Valereee and EEng’s source review reads In Seattle’s Pike Place Market, a tiny donut stand called Daily Dozen sells the freshest donuts you may ever buy.They drop down in a continuous stream from a Belshaw model little bigger than a toaster oven. They’re hot, greasy, and addictive. p. 72 Umimmak (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Umimmak, and that's the entire mention? Valereee (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee: yeah it’s within a larger paragraph on Belshaw; these are the only sentences on Daily Dozen. I checked the index and Ctrl+F’d the ebook as well. Umimmak (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another reference has been added to the article [18] for this clickbait site Advertise with us. The reference is not-independent and fails
  WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You're saying Thrillist cannot be used on Wikipedia? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that its clickbait site with very strong links to social media, that can only exist via the online advertising dollar. The Daily Dozen Doughnut Company has paid them to advertise, so the reference is not independent, more so its not significant. In both cases its fails the notability criteria of

WP: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_creep^Talk 14:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Uh, ok? Sheesh, so much hostility for something as simple as "Naomi Tomky also included Daily Dozen in Thrillist's 2016 list of the 50 'best things to eat and drink' at Pike Place Market". (shrug) Unless you can point to where Thrillist has been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia, I say keep the text/ref in the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hostile, truly. I do a lot of these types of Afds and they tend to be the same kind of thing. I'm interested in a honest discussion. The refs are very poor, transient types with no real intellectual depth. The source table shows that. The article will be either kept by a mountain of keep votes with no interest in examaning the coverage or it will an intellectual discussion of the coverage and what it means and it will be deleted or possibly kept because they're is genuine coverage. That is what I'm aiming for. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Well, this discussion will be most honest when the source assessment actually represents all sources used in the article as well as those which are not currently used in the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many doughnut stands in the world have "intellectually deep" (???) coverage? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AB, if you have sources that aren't used, use them and add them to the table. But honestly, why would you use sources that don't support notability and leave those that do out of the article? Valereee (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is been a concerted effort to add sources to the article since the last Afd, which has resulted in the source assessment table growing substantially, its now about three times the orginal size, yet there is still no decent coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is said 3-fold expansion? There's a source assessment above, and anther on the article's talk page, but I don't see any 3x expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads as a polished up advertisement with loads of quotes to hide the actual lack of content. The Banner talk 15:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve the article's text or identify problematic quotes on the article's talk page. You've commented on the entry's text, but what say you about the amount of secondary coverage the topic has received? This is AfD after all. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is beyond rescue. And yes, there is not enough in-depth secondary coverage. The Banner talk 16:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this article is beyond rescue? You've done an exhaustive search of missing sources? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) My reasons are stated above. 2) Why should I do an "exhaustive search of missing sources"? You should have done that when writing the article. The Banner talk 17:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. The purpose of AfD is to determine if a topic has been discussed enough in secondary sourcing. If all we're doing is assessing the currently used sources, we're not doing a complete assessment. You can imply I've done wrong here but this article's already survived an AfD discussion so clearly I've not been alone in my thinking. Listen, this is a chance for the community to have a serious discussion about notability of this topic. I have no problem with this process. But if editors aren't willing to do an exhaustive search of missing sources then we're doing a disservice to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep looking beyond the partial list of sources above (which already has a few good sources), there is just enuf significant coverage to warrant an article. Everything must be considered holistically, and to my mind there's far too much wrangling here. Sources covering a doughnut stand obviously won't have the same rigour as something much more "important": that is not to say we throw the guidelines to the wind, but let's exercise a bit more... Open-mindedness? I find the relentless campaign to delete this well-written article frankly bemusing, when soooo much more egregious and clearly GNG-insta failing things exist in this internet encyclopedia (and I'm aware I might be guilty of
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or suchlike, but I just needed to get that off my chest!). Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Which sources do you believe support a claim to notability? Valereee (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: being bemused as to why this gained attention: it was nominated at DYK. Any time an article gets to a peer review project, it's going to get more scrutiny. Valereee (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  DYK articles and AfD are two different processes, but I can understand the frustration. Why vote to delete an article if it's been cleaned up and used for DYK on the front page, seems counter-productive. One side is basically keeping and improving the article, the other side is trying to delete it. Not sure how being featured in a DYK affects the notability factor here at AfD, it should count for something I'd think. Otherwise, why bother nominating an article that will get deleted anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't cleaned up. It was written from scratch without adequate sources. Yes, it's counterproductive to write an article without first determining if the subject is notable, but that's what's happened here. Valereee (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete thanks to the source analysis, we have two GNG-"sort of" sources, the rest aren't useful. Two brief semi-useful sources, I'd say we're at maybe one good one. If we had another decent source, I'd change the !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for the simple fact that it was a DYK article. That has to count for something towards notability; otherwise, why make an article and get it upgraded to DYK if it's only going to get deleted. The author has to submit the article for DYK and has to make changes that various other editors suggest to make it DYK-ready. It's a frustrating process I've done myself a few times. I'm on the other side of the fence now, looking at deleting it. If we're going to keep doing this, we should really look at GNG criteria when the DYK nomination comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add "Keep -- It appeared on DYK" to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. EEng 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, it's not "a DYK article". In fact it's because it was nominated at DYK that we ended up here. Someone during the review process raised the question of notability.

But even if it had appeared, why would that matter w/re notability? Neither DYK nor GA assess an article's notability. Even FA doesn't, but it would be highly unlikely anyone could write an FA without significant coverage. This seems like you're saying, "You can bulletproof your article from being AfD'd by nominating it for DYK". Valereee (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more to express frustration in Wikipedia policies, which isn't really what's being discussed here I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I feel like my request to evaluate all available coverage is falling on deaf ears. Does anyone have access to the Seattle Times archives? Does anyone mind searching databases similar to HighBeam Research, LexisNexis, etc? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]