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


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was a lot of debate about how to interpret WP:SIGCOV and WP:SIRS. Ultimately a clear majority came down in favor of the position that considered the coverage lacked significance, due to various combinations of being brief, in local outlets, or about routine matters. A few participants supported merging to Pike Place Market as an alternative to deletion, but they were not able to build a consensus for that. RL0919 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Brochure advertising article for generic doughnut shop. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS, WP:PROMO, WP:AUD. WP:DEL4, and WP:DEL14  scope_creep Talk  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.
 * I'd suggest striking "admin" from the above as it is not relevant to the source analysis, which should stand or fall on its own merits. Jahaza (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to say but I did not expect for this to happen when I nominated this article for DYK. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! EEng 20:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I am partly to blame for 'poking the bear' KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 20:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It's all your fault. Off with his head! EEng 20:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)




 * 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 nomination, 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.  Sounder Bruce  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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Schwede 66  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)
 * Thanks! Now there's just one incomplete table for editors to review. :p --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:56, 14 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 and ’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)
 * 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)
 * Comment Another reference has been added to the article 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)
 * 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_creep Talk  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_creep Talk  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_creep Talk  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)
 * 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_creep Talk  10:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, could be much larger if the table assessed the other half of the sources used in the article. Never mind all the citations with inaccessible URLs. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:59, 14 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</i> 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  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 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)
 * See also WP:CONTN KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 22:10, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Someone needs to add "Keep -- It appeared on DYK" to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is only one policy, and it is Ignore all rules. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 22:21, 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.
 * 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
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:42, 13 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, countering systemic bias against local culture is my argument. I do not know of such a thing existing in wiki policy, and I think it would be good to develop this donut shop as a case contributing to a general rule.
 * Here is what is unusual about this case:
 * I think this is a 1 in 1000 donut shop. There are 10-20,000 donut shops in the United States, and I feel this one is special.
 * Two sorts of evidence why this one is special - lots of sources about this one, absence of sources about others
 * The evidence that there is an absence of sources about the others is Category:Doughnut shops in the United States. I think everything in this category is a corporate chain with source coverage coming from their corporate PR machines. As you say, wiki has systemic bias against non-chains, because Daily Dozen Doughnuts is just a counter with room for one employee in the shop at a time.
 * We have sources for this shop. I confirm they are not all conventional WP:RS due to some being short and only giving basic donut info, but in my opinion we pass WP:42 with enough other conventional sources and there there are lots of sources which are short reviews.
 * About those short reviews - these are not routine travel or restaurant guide reviews covering all the places in a list, but directed personal reviews which chose this place while excluding the many other possible options. The reviews are not just local, but include profiles from cities far from Seattle, and also include several reviewers who themselves are notable by Wikipedia standards. The reason why Wikipedia does not have guidelines for recognizing such sources is that this is uncommon attention, uncommon reviews, for a 1 in 1000 situation
 * I think this donut shop would make a good test case for developing a 1 in 1000 rule for addressing systemic bias in general. The bias to counter is corporate marketing versus more natural journalism for remarkable local landmarks. Some possible rules for recognizing WP:RSs for "1 in 1000s" could be appearance in non list reviews (like we know there are 100 donut shops in Seattle, but this is the one that gets reviews, and the absence of reviews for other places is a factor in determining the RS), reviews by notable authors (notability is not inherited, but experts do have weight that unnamed freelance journalists do not), identification of bias in Wikipedia (here the category is entirely corporate, when this shop is independent), and someone making a case that a particular item is extraordinary (the existence of this article is not going to drive a flood of donut shop articles, because few are like this one).
 *  Bluerasberry  (talk)  15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooh I would love a 1 in 1000 rule! Category:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon and its subs have 451 articles and List of restaurants in Portland, Oregon lists 312 current ones. Tripadvisor suggests there are 2991 restaurants in the city, while this says Portland's metro has 24 restaurants per 10,000 households, which suggests about 2,000 restaurants. Hard to account for number of locations in a chain which TA counts separately, including national chains, and WP doesn't, but I don't think more than 1 in 10 dining establishments are notable. The real bias is suggesting that 1 out of 6 US restaurants is in Portland, and I don't think the solution is to make thousands more articles for the rest of the country based just on local listicles and routine local business coverage that lack the directed personal or wider-audience reviews like so many of these. Reywas92Talk 16:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, did you conclude there are 451 entries with or without duplicates? I understand and respect the point you're making, but many of the articles are in multiple Portland restaurant subcategories so your total might be slightly off if duplicates are being counted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:49, 19 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_creep Talk  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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:23, 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. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 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 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)
 * Then so be it: WP:N is WP:N. Of course, you can always make a proposal for WP:NDONUTSHOP if you wish. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 22:33, 13 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)


 * I agree with you about the mismatch between Daily Dozen Doughnuts and Wikipedia guidelines - our existing guidelines neither are designed to be inclusive of some of the sources about this donut shop, nor are they designed to discount or exclude the unusual sources that we have for this case. I make a case elsewhere in this discussion for Wikipedia to recognize "1 in 1000" items when the sources for such items exist and are not typical.
 * Thanks for trying to bring uniformity to Wikipedia articles on food and restaurants. Credentials do not carry so much influence in Wikipedia, but as a matter of personal attestation, I have experience in Seattle's gorging scene as demonstrated by the certificate here. Daily Dozen was not a place that needed to host eating competitions because so many people were already stuffing their faces with their donuts, and we fast eaters already knew that. My unpublished experience should not be an influence in Wikipedia directly, but indirectly, I can confirm that it is reasonable for anyone to look at the Daily Dozen reviews and find them meaningful, and also to observe the lack of reviews for other donut shops and to find that absence meaningful also. Wikipedia sometimes has trouble recognizing the significance of the absence of sources, and as a serious donut eater with local knowledge, I confirm that plausibly Daily Dozen is really getting more reviews than other places, and reviews for other places may not exist to be found.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The percentage of times your !vote matches a reasonable outcome means a lot. There are times when a particular AfD doesn't get much attention, or that it is closed by an inexperienced closer who doesn't assess the !votes well, but unless those situations represent a majority of your AfD participation, matching the final outcome is what most people look at to determine whether you know what you're doing at AfD. Valereee (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * this screams !VOTER SUPPRESSION KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 11:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be patronised or have somone smugly insinuate that 'I don't know what I'm doing' based on some stats  KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 11:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By the same token....... Why isn't anyone mentioning AB's wonderful hit rate of 84%? Shouldn't he very clearly know what he's doing? Right, this must be a rare exception. It's rather silly, this whole 'hit rate' justification. Problem of induction, anyone? Let's just stick to talking about this article and its merits or lack thereof. There is absolutely no need to start invoking 'hit rates'...... KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 12:00, 17 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)
 * AB, it shouldn't be. It's simply asking for the research to be done up front. I've occasionally moved to article space before I was sure -- Zhang Dongju is an example -- but there's usually a very good reason. In that case, it was that she was a Chinese academic and I suspected transliteration made a difference in how many sources I could find. Valereee (talk) 21:48, 16 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_creep Talk  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_creep Talk  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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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)
 * 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)
 * 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???
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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,, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to being fucking condescending e.g. . I resent you telling A.B. they're fucking condescending without giving me even a ritual nod. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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)


 * 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 and think there's only one doughnut machine in the world. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 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)
 * If you're going down the road of "GNG is the only guideline then you should be aware that the WP:SNG section (which is in the GNG) also points you to WP:NCORP. It is not correct to say GNG takes precedence and at a recent Arbcom case held earlier this year, a discussion was had on the topic of disruption at AfD which included topics such as repeated disruption including "GNG takes precedence" arguments as well as ad hominen and other off-topic discussions. You might want to take a look at your conduct here and try to keep the discussion on-topic. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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_creep Talk  13:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * you're*, since we're in the company of pedants KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 13:26, 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) is Operated 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 is serves 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 . Here's a man from the 21st century (not the 1930s) showing how to use it . 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!"
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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)
 * Oh brother.
 * What the source says is The Stranger caught wind of the incident, and soon the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority was flooded with phone calls from outraged readers. As a result the flag stayed up. That's not "all hell broke loose".
 * What the source says is After the Stranger story broke, she went back to the board to make her case for keeping [the flag] up, and there was little resistance. That's not "Elza had to negotiate the right to put the pride banner up for June each year".
 * What the source says is "Elza thinks the reason she's being asked to take it down is because of a particular business owner not far from her, who she believes is a 'Tea Party member'". That's not "one of the other vendors was likely complaining", but rather Elza's mere speculation.
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:11, 14 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 not "often cited" as a "well-known example"; writeups simply say that you can see the machine and kids like it. And there's nothing special about that -- here's a manufacturer's video explaining that ...
 * Many millions of satisfied customers have seen the Little Orbits system in operation. It's what we call "action attraction". It's fun to eat mini-donuts, but it's also fun to watch them being made. It's important to always be operating the machine in front of your customers. The action and aroma bring them in.
 * Furthermore, operation of donut-making machines in public, as sales tools, goes back to their invention in the 1920s :
 * Levitt's doughnut machine was the first sign that the doughnut, till then merely a taste sensation, could, in production, become a public spectacle. And so generations of kids like me, and adults, too, have stood transfixed by the Willy Wonka-like scene behind the glass of doughnut shops ...
 * This grandiose talk of Daily Dozen having a "machine on full display", like it's this unique marvel you can't see in pretty much any city or town in the world, is just nonsense. I'd say you don't spend enough time in donut shots. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But the fact is, many sources including two books focused on donuts, cite Daily Dozen Doughnut Company as a well-known example of a vendor that is using the machine. Even if you can see it in pretty much any city or town in the world, they chose to focus on this one. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:57, 14 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. 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 lying you 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><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. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Well, unless you're contending that the Serious Eats editorial team flew to Seattle, Lexington (Ky.), New Mexico, Louisiana, and Salt Lake City in order to visit these reader-recommended shops themselves, this fails NCORP's requirement that Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product ... 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:25, 14 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.     scope_creep Talk  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_creep Talk  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, 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)


 * 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's smells of frying dough and cinnamon, there are bright lights above, the employee uses metal tongs, snatching donuts from a glazing carousel connected to a conveyor belt cooker, there is an espresso machine, white paper bags contain each customer's order of doughnuts, it has a Donut 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 a market 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 hair keeps his black hair long and spiky, what bands he likes he bops his head to the sounds of a favorite band—say local faves Hellshock or the irrepressible Dead Kennedys, what accessories he has a studded dog collar around his neck and longer amulet-style studded collars on each wrist, what stickers are on his boombox, what instruments he owns I got a drum kind, but I don't know what to do with it, his relationship status and 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.
 * Umimmak (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 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. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 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).  Sounder Bruce  20:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of going after restaurant entries, I'd suggest starting discussions about these sources at 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_creep Talk  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)
 * No, not really. You have done exactly 7 Afd's and you don't have the experience, as yet. If you did, you would be railing against complete lack of quality here.  scope_creep Talk  09:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lmao sure call me, one of the most prolific writers in my field, inexperienced. Not like experience can disqualify a user from partipating in an AfD vote. ɱ  (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MJ, but which would represent significant coverage? No one is questioning most of the sources as reliable. They're questioning the amount of coverage of the article subject. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding the reference: "Donuts by John T. Edge, pp. 30–35" added to the table above. In the book at 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  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_creep Talk  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_creep Talk  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)
 * Yes it does. This is a business speaking the conversation is held about this business. WP:NCORP is the notability policy that deals with business, so the context is WP:ORGIND and it fails that policy. The owner it not independent from the business, so it is not independent per WP:SIRS. You seems to think that WP:GNG applies here, and interviews have some weight, which is incorrect. Here, they don't because, it is the business speaking. It is not independent. The rest of it is incidencental.     scope_creep Talk  09:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge selectively to Pike_Place_Market. 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 ...
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that section could be revised to mention a variety of food stalls with a weight proportional to their treatment in independent and reliable sources, including ones reviewed here. A subsection for food stalls might also be supportable. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that rewriting from sources does not introduce an attribution dependency that precludes deletion, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline). Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Pike Place Market having looked at the sources in the article and listed in this AFD, none of them constitute significant coverage, which is required for this to be a separate article. But perfectly fine to merge a few sentences about it into the article about the market. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added links to notable authors Monique Polak, Laurie Wolf, and Andrew Knowlton. Not sure if notable authors should be noted in the source assessment table? (which, BTW, still assesses only 1/2 the sources used or shared on talk page...) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still an advertisement and not a wiki-worthy article, to be honest. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet no one's added Template:Advert to the article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cognitive bias is real, to be honest. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 15:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also added a link to Ed Levine of Serious Eats. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment all !votes based on the "very useful source analysis" etc should be discredited until ALL the sources present in the article/talk are accounted for. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How about you save everyone time and add just the ones that count as significant coverage, and point them out? Or -- easier -- just give a quick list of them here. The challenge to do that was issued long ago, and ignored. Meanwhile, what has been done is to add "sources" to the article such a TV station's blog post "review" reading, in its entirety,
 * Topping the list is Daily Dozen Doughnut, boasting 4.5 stars out of 883 reviews on Yelp. Located at 93 Pike St. (near First Avenue) in Pike Market, the bakery and food stand is the highest rated doughnut spot in Seattle. Enticing passers-by with the sweet smell of freshly baked and fried dough, Daily Dozen specializes in warm, bite-size doughnuts sprinkled with powdered sugar or cinnamon.
 * Please, please tell me you can see that this "reviewer" simply copied phrases from Yelp reviews. No editor who understands what notability is about is going to waste his time plowing though the dreck that is this article. Show us the money. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are mischaracterizing. The KTSW source was added on November 2, not recently. Actually (and unfortunately), editors haven't really discussed the more recent additions to the article. I'm so disappointed to see this discussion devolve into such a shitshow. I agree with KINGofLETTUCE, there are way too many references to the source assessment table which is maybe half complete (?) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. It was dreck already in the article, not dreck added recently. My bad, and thanks for the correction. Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for you to point out the specific sources that count as sigcov. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bluerasberry, re: I can confirm that it is reasonable for anyone to look at the Daily Dozen reviews and find them meaningful, and also to observe the lack of reviews for other donut shops and to find that absence meaningful also. Wikipedia sometimes has trouble recognizing the significance of the absence of sources, and as a serious donut eater with local knowledge, I confirm that plausibly Daily Dozen is really getting more reviews than other places, and reviews for other places may not exist to be found: Approximately 30% of Category:Doughnut shops in the United States are in Seattle or Portland. I know you guys like your donuts out there in the PNW, but that seems a little high. (FWIW, I think you inserted that reply in the wrong place, it now looks like I was replying to you.) Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I doubt it really matters. You've convinced yourself and your acolytes that this must be non-notable, so even those sources that have already been pointed out as significant coverage have been instinctively rejected as insignificant. And whoever disagrees clearly lacks experience and a perfect understanding of our sacrosanct guidelines. You're even insinuating that Another Believer does not understand what notability is about! KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been insulted many times the past few days. I've kind of become numb to it on Wikipedia, to be honest. Feels like a group showed up with pitchforks absolutely determined to delete this article, implying I have no clue what I'm doing. This is clearly an on-the-bubble case re: notability but there's no need for all the rude comments. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? I'm all for constructive discussions about notability but this has not been one of them. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * implying I have no clue what I'm doing – To be blunt, it's increasingly clear that that may very well be true. I picked a random one of your recent article creations, The Misfit (restaurant), and guess what? Of 24 citations, an astounding 16 are to Eater. For example:
 * The Misfit’s avocado toast adds a layer of creaminess with fresh burrata, baby tomato, and crispy sourdough bread. If you’re gluten-free, The Misfit can accommodate that request, just let them know.
 * That's Eater's "Contributor Keyla Vasconcellos" writing in 2015 on "13 Instagram-Worthy Avocado Toasts to Try Right Now in Los Angeles" . Two years later Contributor Vasconcellos updated her readers with an expanded "17 Avocado Toasts Worth Eating and Instagramming in Los Angeles", now reporting that
 * The Misfit’s avocado toast adds a layer of creaminess with fresh burrata, baby tomato, and crispy sourdough bread. If gluten-free, The Misfit can accommodate that request, just let them know.
 * Both of these are sources in the article. Let me repeat that: two utterly fucking trivial and completely identical two-sentence "reviews" have been stuffed into the article as "sources" to support the highly encyclopedic statement that "the menu has included avocado toast with burrata, tomato, and sourdough".
 * Oh wait, sorry, correction: the second one leaves out the word you're. So I guess they're different. My apologies.
 * So that's 2 of 16 from Eater. Hungry for more? OK, how about
 * On Father's Day The Misfit offers dads any of the restaurant's 16 beers for just 10 cents. And, he can order as many as he would like at this price, no restrictions. ("In 2011, The Misfit offered fathers select beers for 10 cents on Father's Day", the article gravely reports to Wikipedia's readers).
 * I think that gives you the picture regarding the Eater. Of the remaining 8 sources, here are 4 in their entirety:
 * This darkly lit emporium of food, drink and fun is notable for the decent menu and phenomenal cocktails made from craftsman spirits. Set in a historic building decked out with a retro interior, it's busy from brunch to last call.
 * The Misfit has a sprawling bar that begins its happy hour at NOON on weekdays and has both delicious food and drink menu offerings. If you're looking for a cocktail, try the Jumping Jack Flash, which is both what happens when you wear your short shorts to gym class and a concoction made with ginger, mint, and Buffalo Trace.
 * Must-visit restaurants ... The Misfit for gourmet comfort food and signature cocktails
 * "Local Santa Monica Restaurants with outdoor dining ... The Misfit Restaurant
 * That leaves this and this and this and this. I'll leave it to out esteemed fellow editors to judge whether those constitute sigcov.
 * So yeah, it does actually look like you have no clue what you're doing. Sorry, but you asked for it. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm being trolled at this point so I'm moving on to other things. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But best not describe them as "deletionists" -- that is bad faith! (Well, looks like it's just been me who's been using the dreaded D word, although I will forever maintain that it's a perfect description of their outward behaviour, even if their intentions may be well and good.) KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes when I see certain editors show up in my watchlist, I assume they've voted 'delete' before I even go to the page to read their comments. It is what it is. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to the market. I love Daily Dozen, but this article has been fluffed up with quantity to try and hide a lack of notability. Business gets criticized for displaying a pride flag and the like are not in depth coverage required of N:CORP. This is a broader issue with restaurants and the like. They are "in the news" with Eater, etc. for a bit, but it's not lasting or depth. Same challenge as listicle type coverage. In the news is not corporate notability. Star   Mississippi  17:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article now suffers a bit from "Rescu-itis" in that it is cramming lots of sources in parallel with this deletion discussion, also as multiple editors pass through and try to add what they find. But as with all deletion discussions, it's not the exact current state that matters, but rather the quality of the sources, and the discussion should remain focused on whether or not the bare minimum requirement for WP:ORG is met, which I think is also what you are saying. I just wanted to point out that we should assume good faith in terms of why the article looks the way it does now, and that it's not necessarily a "fluff" or "hiding" job, but to centralize information so that we don't create even more tables and lists everywhere, and waste even more of everyone's energy chasing the same articles over and over again. (In a normal editing process, if this article were to be kept, it would get trimmed for sure.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No one's questioning anyone's good faith. The "Rescue-itis" you describe (great word!) is just another example of the crap-magnet phenomenon you and I discussed here i.e. the desperation to keep an article on a nonnotable subject induces would-be saviors to fill the article with crap. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No desperation here, yo. Peace. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean you -- you didn't add it to the article. I should have been clearer about that. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: I've linked four notable writers in the article: Monique Polak, Laurie Wolf, Ed Levine, and Andrew Knowlton. These individuals are linked in the article's References section. I've added mention of three to the source assessment table above. Can folks who keep linking to WP:SIGCOV help me understand if the authors being notable makes any difference? Genuinely curious, much appreciated. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Another Believer: I would say that if those names are subject-matter experts or reputable journalists, it would bolster the reliability of their work and might even qualify self-published work; but it wouldn't change the extent to which they've written about the article subject. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Monique Polak is a Canadian novelist and journalist (source + current ref 18: "Pike Market merchants have theatrical flair: Much to the delight of Seattle shoppers" (August 16, 1997), The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec. p. H6. "Originally the stable for farmers' horses, the Economy Market Building earned its name because it was the discount or day-old section of the market. Today, it's home to such venerable establishments as the Daily Dozen Doughnut Co., where owner Barbara Elza processes 35 pounds 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 destination - a tin display plate.)" Ed Levine is a food writer and the creator/founder of the American cooking website Serious Eats (source). Laurie Wolf is a food and cookbook writer (source) and Andrew Knowlton was the restaurant editor at Bon Appétit and a judge on cooking television shows (source). I would consider these individuals subject matter experts. Unless we're expecting donut experts? (I volunteer as tribute!!) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (also a question, not a judgement or decision): is it the profile of the author or the depth of their coverage? I think it's the latter, but that's just my opinion as an editor. We'd trust Knowlton over a tire repair mechanic to talk about a donut shop, but that doesn't necessarily make the shop notable. Star   Mississippi  02:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's elitist for you to privilege the opinion of some snobbish food writer over that of a tire repair mechanic, who probably spends far more time in donut shops. Same for police officers. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Subject matter expertise seems relevant to me. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Another Believer pretty sure @EEng left off the sarcasm tag. Or they're just writerist. :-) However I did not know you could ping in edit summaries so helpful! Star   Mississippi  19:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, my writerist cleared right up when I started using one of those ergonomic keyboards. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in here (no opinion about the article itself), but a notable writer writing about something does not necessarily mean the writer is a reliable source, or that coverage by said writer is significant enough to establish notability. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 03:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Another Believer: If you've identified subject-matter experts, that basically means that you could use something they've published on their own to count towards notability – it makes questionable sources reliable. But for a source to count towards notability, it needs to be both reliable and provide significant coverage of its subject, and the identity of the author can't help you on the latter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added one of Polak's articles to the source assessment table for others to review. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Holy doughnuts, Batman! This discussion is huge! When I came across this at WT:DYK, I never expected it to be this big. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I do not have the time to go through all this, could someone show me 3-5 of the best (most in-depth) sources, and I'll base my !vote off of that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny you should ask. A bunch of us have been waiting for an answer to that question since this discussion began. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - since this AfD started, numerous changes have taken place, including new references. It may not be fair to consider the evaluations early-on in this discussion, before such changes were made. ɱ  (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you'd answer 's question immediately above, then we can all update our !votes. Since you !voted Keep, you should have no trouble doing that. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't found many sources over 100 words, and even fewer over 200 words. But I've helped write FAs and GAs with as hodgepodged of sources, strewn together to form a cohesive narrative. For some businesses and for some historical topics, it's necessary, as there isn't a wholehearted focus on the subject until you get there. Does that make it any less important? I'd say no. ɱ  (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:ITSIMPORTANT. So you're telling us that you can't list even three sources which individually qualify as sigcov? You have to string them together? Oy vey. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:IAR. If you think one rule about in-depth sourcing should stop a long, detailed, neutral, well-cited, wonderful article from existing, you should re-evaluate your standards on this site. ɱ  (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. Your philosophy seems to have changed since the time you told : Perhaps reevaluate your standards to align with Wikipedia's, as Wikipedia will not spontaneously align with yours. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC) You sure like the word reevaluate a lot!
 * There's surely one thing I don't have to reevaluate: that Sacred Cod is full of inane bullshit. But that is no longer important here nor there. ɱ  (talk)
 * Indeed it's not. When you get over being butthurt, can you get us that list of sigcov sources? Just the three you judge best will be fine. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read what I wrote, and you're clearly just sticking around to call any support votes "butthurt", which seems to me a description of you.... Again, I've been involved in many quality articles that don't meet that one rule. One violation doesn't make this article unworthy of belonging on Wikipedia. Now kindly fuck off. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Temper, temper! For those playing along at home who may be wondering, the rule MJ wants us to ignore is WP:SIGCOV. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 12:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And you've told at least one editor you'll "stop testing the limits of editors' willingness to make fools of themselves" here if they come vote (knowing their opinion already). This is canvassing. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 15:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I call that a serious discussion about the usefulness and reliability of some sources. Not a call to vote and therefor not canvassing. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm all for discussions about the appropriateness of specific sources, that's not the issue. Canvassing is "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate". In my opinion, asking editors to come vote a certain way in a deletion discussion is not OK, but whatever. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * and to your point, maybe you should stop and read WP:SIGCOV. It's a guideline, to start, so can't be a single be-all-end-all for determining whether to keep or delete an article. Secondly, that section talks about numerous ways to determine notability. Significant coverage is only one of many ways to ensure "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". It also is not a be-all-end-all. So while we can't easily presume notability based on sigcov, we can assess it to be notable based on the heavy reliable sourcing from around the country and even elsewhere in the world. ɱ  (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the beginning of the notability guideline includes:

For this topic, we can apply the WP:NCORP guideline, which in the WP:ORGCRIT section says, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. From my view, NCORP helps us determine whether an article should be excluded as WP:PROMO, because without significant coverage of a company, there is a risk of creating promotional content instead of encyclopedic content, which is contrary to WP:NOT policy. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can go down a rabbit-hole of guidelines and sub-guidelines and explanations and definitions. In the end, it is just one small part of what establishes notability as written in a guideline. Not a policy. Not a be-all-end-all for whether to keep or delete. ɱ  (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have !voted to merge content from this article, because there does not appear to be sufficient independent and significant coverage to support a standalone article at this time. From my view, it would not improve Wikipedia to ignore all rules designed to protect the encyclopedia from advertising and promotion. Also, editors in this discussion have asked for a few sources with significant coverage to be identified here (which seems reasonable due to the citation overkill in the article), but this does not appear to have happened. Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, there's a tag on Pike Place Market which says, "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings", so merging there doesn't seem ideal. I've started a discussion on the PPM article's Talk page to see how the tag can be addressed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggested the creation of a section for food stalls with a subheading, and this seems helpful for addressing concerns about readability. I also think the inclusion of content about other food stalls further supports a merger, because it creates a clear destination for merged content and can help determine how much merged content is WP:DUE. Overall, the question of what to do with the Pike Place Market article does not seem to substantially impact whether a subsection about food stalls can be incorporated - if anything, the addition of independent and reliable sources about the food stalls may help with determining how to edit the Market article generally, perhaps by making it more clear that a split is needed or condensing of content would be beneficial. Beccaynr (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Based on the whole discussion. Enough words are said already. Coldbolt (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have done 6 deletion discussions. You completely ignored the source analysis table as though it counts for nothing, showing your lack of experience, when in fact, it is everything.   scope_creep Talk  13:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Editor EEng is textbook-definition canvassing for votes and admits to harassing voters. Votes here cannot be trusted to be unadulterated. ɱ  (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When you read that whole discussion, you will see that it is a serious discussion about the usefulness and reliability of some sources. Not a call to vote and therefor not canvassing. Context is everything. Stop bashing editors who disagree with you, it does not make your arguments stronger. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. If I were going to editors and saying I'd stop commenting here if they come vote keep, I'd get my hand slapped big time. Again, no problem with editors discussing source usefulness. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * regardless of context, you can't just make deals with editors to vote. This is as caught-red-handed as Donald Trump's "I would like you to do us a favor though". ɱ  (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is why reading the whole discussion is important. Just to get the full context. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is canvassing! KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 19:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, you benighted naifs need to take your facetiousness detectors in for recalibration. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And attacking an editor is still attacking an editor. Do you have more content-related arguments? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they will happily concede to (justifiably) attacking an editor if the other side also admits to canvassing. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 22:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Clear, a case of attacking an editor to have a chilling effect on the discussion. You do not have any content related arguments? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Same stuff I wrote in the delightfully-censored 'off-topic' portion applies. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 12:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our notability requirements are not presented as a policy such that articles, and our assessments of them, have to conform to the notability criteria as hard-line rules. Instead we have advisory notability guidelines as pointers to help us achieve articles along the lines suggested by WP:WHYN. This article, in my view, succeeds as an article and is worthwhile. It is well referenced and has overall substantial content. Thincat (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that notability is optional is certainly a novel one, and promises to usher in a brave new era of endless hollow articles cobbled together from phrases extracted from online reviews. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that every fucking letter of a guideline doesn't need to be followed is certainly not fucking new. Didn't I tell you to stop bothering every voter? ɱ  (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Temper, temper! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have obviously expressed myself very poorly. I am not for one moment suggesting that notability is optional. However, the guidelines by we assess notability are not perfect which is why they admit of occasional exceptions (such as in this case, I think). Do you think our guidelines, as written, are perfect or that they are mandatory on editors? Thincat (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Guidelines on obscure issues tend to be less well developed, and therefore it's not uncommon for unanticipated situations to arise that suggest making an exception. But WP:N isn't such a guideline -- it is, without a doubt, one of the most scrutinized, discussed, revised, and fought-over guidelines we have, and therefore the reasoning for any exception would have to be very well elucidated indeed. So far, the closest thing to coherent reasoning (and it's not, truth be told, very close) is (above)
 * I haven't found many sources over 100 words, and even fewer over 200 words. But I've helped write FAs and GAs with as hodgepodged of sources, strewn [sic, strung?] together to form a cohesive narrative. For some businesses and for some historical topics, it's necessary, as there isn't a wholehearted focus on the subject until you get there. Does that make it any less important? I'd say no.
 * AFAICT this is an argument that you can string 50 trivial sources together to add up to sigcov, even if not one single source gives sigcov on its own. But if such an exception is countenanced, then it would apply equally to literally hundreds of thousands of other restaurants or bars (and that's just in the US) that have what every restaurant or bar has these days: dozens five-sentence "reviews" and "list of" appearances. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like the d*******ist game plan in this AfD is to 1) insist on an extremely tedious reading of notability guidelines, 2) invoke "hit rates" to discredit Keep !votes, but only when it's convenient and not when those !voting keep have what they'd consider stellar "hit rates", and 3) talk about a nightmarish slippery slope involving hundreds of thousands of random shoddy articles being created if this 7641-character article with 43 sources were to be kept. Discounting 1) and 2), which I'm sure are mischaracterisations on my part because I have a poor "hit rate" and am very inexperienced, please tell me more about 3): surely every AfD is judged case by case? Why would this "exception" apply "equally" to hypothetical articles that are obviously inferior (in terms of length or sourcing or whatever else that this article has that they wouldn't). Couldn't we still exercise some common sense? KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 23:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a slipperly-slope argument. The question is merely, if this "stringing together sources" argument is actually valid, where are the half million additional articles that would qualify under that interpretation of SIGCOV? What you call an "extremely tedious" reading of guidelines, I call taking them at face value and asking for reasoning for an exception. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I simply cannot follow the logic of your statement. Just why would there be half a million additional articles? This isn't a blind or indiscriminate interpretation, it's one that calls for articles to be handled on a case-by-case basis with some COMMON SENSE. If someone wanted to write half a million more articles with at least 43 sources and 7641 characters too, by all means! It seems to me that you're just raising an objection for the sake of it (which is what I'd call "extremely tedious"). Nuff said, KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kingoflettuce, I wasn't referencing other people's better stats to discredit your keep vote. (The closer will assess the strength of your argument on their own, and whether or not you've got a good record isn't even something they'll take into account; even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and if your argument is policy-based and compelling, they'll give it due weight.)
 * I was referencing it to show you why maybe the people you're calling "deletionists" are probably just better at assessing notability than you are. It seriously is all about calling people deletionists. And asterisking out the word doesn't make it any less battlegroundy to use it. Unless someone is telling you they're a deletionist, you should just give that a rest. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if deletionist is a dirty word like you make it out to be, there wouldn't be too many people professing to be deletionists. The duck test applies to deletionists as much as it does sockpuppets. Going on a whim to nominate 30 AB-written articles at one go speaks for itself. Even you realise this is not the most acceptable course of action. Creep opnely admits to not caring about looking at each article individually to assess its unique merits/demerits & absurdly concludes that "99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable" and that all articles on defunct restaurants ought to be deleted. It's just bonkers! And you tell me to "give it a rest"? C'mon! KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 21:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This has spilled over to Articles for deletion/Bit House Saloon and Articles for deletion/Sushi Kaneyoshi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro (bundle of 14 articles) and Fenouil (PROD). Feels like I'm being targeted, some would say for good reason and others might say unnecessarily so. Regardless, rescuing all of these within the time constraints of AfD has become too stressful and too much of a time suck. Please remember we're here to build an encyclopedia, there's no need for all of the hounding and mischaracterizing and mud-slinging. I'm incredibly disappointed and frustrated by these recent discussions, which feel like "punishment" for doing wrong to Wikipedia. I've used an article pattern which has yielded at least 50 Good entries. I don't think my opinion matters because I have these credits, I'm just saying my process has been vetted and praised enough times that I continued to create content using similar methods and patterns. I can't be blamed for repeating successful results! I'm well-intentioned but being painted as an evil moron who has no clue what he's doing. If there are issues with restaurant articles, then let's create a style guide. If there are issues with specific sources like Thrillist, then go here and start a discussion. This is about bigger issues, not me. I hope these entries will be kept, but for now I'm going to bow out and go enjoy the real world. Happy editing, folks! --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 17:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING to me. The second word in the nominator's username says it all. A shame! KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 18:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a very old trick to start bashing the nominator to hide the actual lack of notability. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that it's textbook Wikihounding, ?! Give me a break... KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 19:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also a very old trick to begin a sentence with "It is a very old trick..." to make one seem like the wise editor who knows best, when in fact he's just muttering platitudes and ignoring the very egregious problem being raised (namely, that someone is CLEARLY engaged in the bad-faith act of WIKIHOUNDING, & it's almost impossible to give them the benefit of doubt). We can talk about the articles and their strengths/weaknesses if the nominations are made in the right spirit, and not to target the work of one editor. This shouldn't even need to be said! KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 19:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To my opinion a whole series of accusations of wikihouding on every page nominated is equally a case of wikihounding. I have checked those nominations and to my opinion they are valid. Mostly because the restaurants lack notabilty and in one case because it is a very poor article about a former restaurant with Michelin star (what usually gives a truck load of media attention but the article does not show that). The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable, are you even listening to yourself? In my opinion, calling out others for Wikihounding is not the same as Wikihounding (and notice has to be given at each of the few million AfDs Creep has happily started, just to let everyone know that they've specifically been targetting AB's works, or they might be none the wiser). What would be Wikihounding, for instance, would be nominating all the Creep-written articles that may be problematic in retaliation. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 21:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not retaliating but protecting Wikipedia from sub-standard and/or non-notable articles written by one specific editor. Every article should be judged against the same policies and guidelines. There is no policy available to protect an editor against application of the magnifying glass to keep policies in place. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I can't disagree with this but it doesn't appear that due care and consideration has been given to each individual article if the nominator collectively nominates 20 of them with the justification that "99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable". IMHO this not "application of the magnifying glass to keep policies in place", it's trigger-happy. And if we really wanted to take that magnifying glass out, it doesn't seem prudent to do it in the midst of an AfD like this one! KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 13:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At the same time, I have been advised that what SC is doing is not technically Wiki-hounding. I apologise for the mischaracterisation, even if I still believe that the mass AfDs were not the best course of action. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 13:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Admin comment: Asterisking out the letters in deletionist was borderline, but that's a blatant personal attack on @Scope creep, @Kingoflettuce and you know better, which is why you're not getting a template warning. If there's a meta conversation to be had, you and @Another Believer can bring it to the relevant notice board without further clogging this discussion. Star   Mississippi  21:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. A lot of trivial coverage does not add up to WP:SIGCOV.  I read the Chicago Tribune and Vancouver Sun sources, because those seem to be what people are claiming at the best.  They're both minor mentions in listicles.  Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of WP:SIGCOV.  That this passed a WP:GA review is an indication of how absurd the GA process is. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * GA and FA both explicitly do not consider notability, nor should they. Notability is not part of the criteria for either. Hence why Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is no longer an article, despite reaching FA status. I'm familiar with the editor who reviewed this article, and in my experience her reviews are thorough and accurately assess articles against the GA criteria. I don't think it's fair to implicitly accuse her of wrongdoing. I don't dispute that this article isn't notable, but that doesn't say anything about the GA process. If you have suggestions for improving the GA process, I for one would love to hear them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing the reviewer of wrongdoing. I'm saying that the GA criteria are absurd.  If you can have an article pass GA and fail AfD, something's wrong with GA. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely non-notable business, fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage appears to exist, and indeed, why should it exist? No newspaper is going to be giving in-depth coverage to an entirely unremarkable doughnut shop, and neither should we. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">Thparkth (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per NCORP, and agreed with EEng's assessments. A few sentences here and there or even everywhere, but especially from local media, do not add up to SIGCOV, and this is particularly true for corporations which have the money to throw into marketing themselves. There's also nothing in our P&Gs that says we should AGF for sources, so I also question the independence of all the Seattle-based reviews. JoelleJay (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep What a mess. This article was kept at AfD six weeks ago. You don't get to just keep nominating until you get the result you want. Garuda3 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.