Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Hot Doughnuts


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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 23:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Olympic Hot Doughnuts

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The only actually reliable source is the article in the Age, which is not about this eating place, but a later one on the same site.  DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Unless there is sourcing for the long history this is just assertion and OR. Are there sources for this that meet the GNG
 * Keep - even though the place mentioned in the Age article is a replacement it still has a significant history. Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems like a local WP:RUNOFTHEMILL outlet. Geschichte (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's not, it has a long history in the area. It is not a "run of the mill" outlet. Deus et lex (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - sources here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The shop was also the subject of a short film here. Hopefully this satisfies the need for sources, . People seriously need to do a WP:BEFORE search. Deus et lex (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Deus et lex's sources. The Business Insider and Sydney Morning Herald articles are especially strong. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Even with the added sources, I would still say to delete. trivial material about a local business. We keep having this problem with articles of food providers, that people LIKE them.  DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - DGG, I have to thoroughly disagree here. It's pretty difficult to get a single store getting that much external coverage. This is not a trivial article, it is a well known retail icon in Melbourne's history and the sources support that. I agree that most individual stores do not meet Wikipedia notability standards, but this one does. I have had no involvement in this article at all, so this is not a WP:LIKE suggestion. My point is that this clearly meets GNG and you should not have nominated it for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: In the scheme of an encyclopedia the listing of a now defunct business is Run-of-the-mill. The article is tagged as having promotional wording. This would be identifiable with such wording as the much loved business's future and Even to this day, Olympic Hot Doughnuts has left a substantial legacy on Footscray, surrounding suburbs and Melbourne as a whole, with multiple Facebook fan pages for the former business still active.[citation needed] Please note: This would be a great place for a regional citation to advance notability. I am sure Mr Tsiligiris is a great person but there is a slippery slope argument (average business) to be considered other than the Wikipuffery. As a local and now defunct business I can't see how this would not fall under what Wikipedia is not| which was a local business in a suburb with around 16,000 people receiving local and community media attention, as opposed to regional and especially not national or international. Otr500 (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I ask the closing nominator to note that this user clearly hasn't read the material or any of the discussion above. The fact they refer to "article" suggests they haven't even considered the multiple other sources that I have found that talk about the business, show it is not defunct, it has been replaced by a new owner with the same name, and the fact it has made the state newspaper (not just a local paper - The Age is one of the most well-known newspapers in Australia) and various other sources - this is NOT a run of the mill outlet. It clearly meets GNG. WP:YELLOWPAGES is completely irrelevant to this article - it is not a directory listing with phone numbers, etc. The sources talk about the history of the business and its place as an iconic Melbourne business. I really get tired of having to explain things like this in AfD debates where people don't read things. Deus et lex (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply concerning comments of : All of my neutral gender singular personalities did open a tab for each of the citations "you all" added. Now I think all one of you (still singular I presume) confused this AFD with another. The mundane news reporting of the subject title shows the business is not "a new owner with the same name". The lead states "was a local business" indicating it is now closed. The heraldsun article states "the shop would remain closed". A link on that page has the title "Famed doughnut shop shuts down". Each of the eight images in the "Broadstreet" source has a big red caption stating PERMANENTLY CLOSED. Another heraldsun source has the title Footscray’s famous Olympic Doughnuts will not reopen. Yet another "heraldsun" source states "Owner of Dad and Dave’s cafe Russell Karim opened Footscray Doughnuts and Coffee" mentioned as being the new "leaseholder".
 * Concerning "this subject", clearly a defunct local business (as evidenced by the multiple mundane news and business reporting provided by Deus et lex) and as indicated in the article, I do not think the sources mentioning the business, the "previous owner", nor the clear demise of the subject (Olympic Hot Doughnuts), as notable (historical or otherwise) for encyclopedic inclusion as a stand alone article. I would suggest rechecking which AFD "you all" are commenting on before giving a solicitation to a closer to discount my comments. As an WP:ATD maybe the subject would be better suited included in another title like Footscray railway station or Footscray, Victoria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
 * Your comment doesn't make any sense. The other article shows it has reopened under new owners. But apart from that (and even if I had got that wrong), you have again shown that you don't read what anyone is saying. The business has received external coverage from the state newspapers (and a number of different sources), not just local papers. It is NOT mundane and the claim it is just a business listing is completely untrue. How many times do I need to explain that? Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note to closing moderator - I ask that not much weight be given to Otr500's comments. They do not show that he has read the sources. The fact that a business has closed (the only claim Otr500 really makes) is not a reason for deletion. This is not a business listing, it is a clear case where GNG applies and a strong exception to articles not being kept on shops. This business has a clear strong history and where WP:NOTPAPER applies. Deus et lex (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Look, in the abstract, having an article about a defunct donut shop seems silly. But the fact of the matter is that there is clearly significant media coverage about this. While I personally find articles about defunct local businesses to be silly, I don't think we can delete this article given the current showing of sources/coverage. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the key failure here is WP:AUD "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The coverage for the article is local, and there are no incoming links from articles. Most of the news articles are brief and local.  I am not familiar with all the sources, but they appear local to me.  Jeepday (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -, did you read the articles I posted earlier that confirm the notability of this subject? They are far from brief, and they are definitely not local. The Age (for example) is one of Melbourne (and Australia)'s major newspapers. You must read the whole of the discussion before commenting. Deus et lex (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not see that the Age article qualifies to create notability. While it is a regional paper, the subject of the article is within 10KM of downtown Melbourne.  So it is still local coverage. Jeepday (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Age is a major state newspaper for the city of Melbourne. This is NOT local coverage. Local coverage would be the relevant Footscray local newspaper, which this isn't. And you haven't even considered the other articles. I'd ask you to please reconsider your !vote, it is just founded on incorrect guesswork that isn't true. I have listed countless sources above that show that this place is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well-supported by good sources. There appears to be enough notability to make the cut for me, and it's a nice piece of 'folklore' - a good encyclopedia piece in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: the subject of the article is covered at length in multiple independent reliable sources. The ROTM argument fails here: if this were one of a thousand food trucks or similar that were all covered in this detail by multiple newspapers, that would be different, but there's a reason why this one got so much attention. If the article needs improvement, it can be fixed. Deletion isn't a replacement for quality improvement. --Slashme (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think it just passes the bar for coverage. KylieTastic (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our job as editors, and as AfD voters, is not to decide whether the subject of an article is respectable -- it's to decide whether it's notable, by reviewing its coverage in reliable third-party sources. That's present here. Who cares if it's silly or stupid? Politicians can be quite silly and stupid, and we still have articles about them! jp×g 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, calling The Age "local media" is perhaps the dumbest take I have ever seen at AfD. Clear-as-day GNG pass, we do not delete articles for being about silly subjects. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


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