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.
One of 13 items in this local listicle, with a single sentence
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I've been here. Their donuts are good. But there's not significant coverage to pass
WP:GNG or
WP:NORG. It's one of many donut stores in Seattle (and the world), and they aren't notable here because local outlets churn out their "daily dozen" lists of places to buy food in the city with brief listings of stores and restaurant counters. Wikipedia's not just a compilation of listicle entries, and more dedicated and in-depth coverage is needed to establish notability.
Reywas92Talk15:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I watch Seattle articles. The
Pike Place Market is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world, and almost everyone who goes there sees this weird donut booth. I asked a friend who said that this donut place has been there since the 60s; I cannot find a source, but in any case, this is place is old and positioned as a spectacle for a lot of tourists. I am satisfied with the 8 cited sources here talking about location, the donut machine they use, and how people like the donuts. There are lots of other places nearby selling baked goods and donuts - this one has the media attention and the others do not. The reviews are organic and not paid promotion.
Bluerasberry (talk)16:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree with Reywas - most of the businesses at the Pike Place Market do not merit articles. This one does though, because the sources cover it and not other shops. The sources do not say this, but this particular donut shop occupies some of the most valuable real estate in the market and in Seattle, and it is a fair candidate for being the most recognizable donut shop in the world. It does not surprise me to see that this particular donut shop gets media attention when others do not.
Bluerasberry (talk)18:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Sufficient secondary coverage, in my opinion. I'm getting tired of having to defend my work to this particular editor, who I've now asked to slow down with deletion nominations. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)16:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Adequately sourced, cited as one of "Seattle's best doughnuts" by a notable newspaper and mentioned in numerous
books on Seattle. The article could do with a bit more info on the history and background if possible, and perhaps cutting back a little on some of the reception quotes, but I think the subject is acceptable.♦
Dr. Blofeld16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
"Mention" is not significant coverage, and this does not pass GNG or NORG. These very short sources indicate there are at least a bakers' dozen of best donuts in Seattle, and that doesn't make them all notable.
Reywas92Talk17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I wouldn't find it unusual if all of the "best donuts in large city X" had notability to become articles. Spurious. ☆ Bri (
talk)
17:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Expanded lede, description, and history sections. Added
SIGCOV from Seattle Gay News about owner Barbara Elza's dispute with the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority (2009–2012) over her decision to display a rainbow flag at Daily Doughnuts during Pride Month (and eventually deciding not to take it down). SGN refers to other coverage in
The Stranger newspaper which might be worth chasing down at some point, but in any case, this is an interesting part of the company history which helps to get it over the line in terms of coverage of the organization vs. "just" the product. To improve further, I would follow Dr. Blofeld's advice and look at further expansion of the history section and pare down some of the lengthy, exuberant quotes in the reviews section.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
10:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your improvements to the article. I agree, the Reception section could use a bit of trimming. I had to include what I could find quickly, after the article was nominated unnecessarily. I'll likely get around to promoting to Good article status in the near future. Happy editing! ---
Another Believer(
Talk)14:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.