Wikipedia

Talk:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company/Archive 1

< Talk:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Another Believer in topic The Stranger
Archive 1

History before 1989?

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Since the shop had is 115th anniversary in 2022, the shop was founded in 1907. However, the article only covers the history after Barbara Elza started operating the shop. Mucube (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mucube Pike Place Market celebrated a 115th anniversary, not the shop. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Good catch. But the shop was probably not founded in 1989, because it has a 1930s doughnut machine. So, again, is there any information about the shop before 1989? Mucube (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I would have included any earlier history had I come across details in my exhaustive search. I should note, though, I don't have access to the Seattle Times archives if someone else wants to do a search. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Did a quick sweep of the archives and found a P-I article from July 31, 1991 ("Seattle pair's espresso gets hotter in N.Y.", p. C1) that claims Todd Collins had owned daily Dozen. Another from The Times in October 2001 ("A warm welcome for one red-hot treat", p. E1) repeats the SGN claim that Elza has run the stand since 1988. SounderBruce 02:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@SounderBruce Good find! I'm reluctant to add citations and text when I'm unable to view the sources myself, but you're more than welcome to update the article as you see fit. Thanks so much! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Might you be willing to add these claims/references to the article appropriately? I understand neither source is considered comprehensive coverage, but I'd love for this entry to at least be as complete as possible given current scrutiny. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC) I was able to find the source mentioning Todd Collins. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Photo w/ rainbow flag

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed File:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, Seattle (2022) - 1.jpg shows the rainbow flag behind the counter, if better for illustrating the History section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Impact

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Ɱ added a sentence about Beavers Coffee. This source has a quote by Nate Snell, cofounder of Pip's Original Doughnuts & Chai. Recognizing this is a direct quote, might this be worth including in some way? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Established in 1978?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This source says two sisters started the company in 1978. Updating article now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Bourdain's "Parts Unknown" episode?

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

These sources suggest Daily Dozen may have been featured in an episode of Parts Unknown:

I might be misinterpreting the slideshows, though. Anyone happen to know? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't view the links but I watched the penultimate episode of Season 10 myself and sadly no Daily Dozen there. This [1] confirms as much. Would have been a huge find though! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! DD is mentioned in two little slideshows in both sources, so wasn't sure. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, my heart sinks just reading this talk page and looking at how much time you've spent trying to rescue this article, when it's probably going to be deleted based on how the AfD discussion is going so far. It feels almost pointless 😢 Oh well. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 19:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about me! I'm not going to lose any sleep over Wikipedia editors deciding to delete an entry about a donut shop. Do I think the article should be kept? Of course! But life goes on :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Miniature or mini doughnuts?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The lead describe miniature doughnuts. Google came up with mini doughnuts. Ought the lead be changed? Is there an actual specification for different doughnut sizes? I'm intrigued because eating a dozen minis seems a binge whereas miniature implies something smaller than mini. Anyone know the rough weight and size of an individual doughnut produced at this place? Perhaps a size comparison photo could be added. Rupples (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Most readers likely know "mini" is short for "miniature" without being told. Ann Teak (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Really? I associate a "miniature doughnut" with being a small ceramic/other material representation of a doughnut (like a dolls house piece) not a smaller version of the edible doughnut, which is AFAIK far more commonly referred to as a "mini doughnut". Rupples (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Rupples Travel + Leisure compared them to ping-pong balls (see above "More sources" subsection), if that's helpful. Unfortunately, File:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company - 5228688603.jpg does not give a sense of scale but I've added File:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company - 5229282462.jpg to the article to hopefully help illustrate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Alalch E.. Big thumbs up from me for changing the lead from "miniature" to "bite-sized" on your recent edit. This together with the links you placed and AB's addition of "ping-pong ball" size in the description completely clears up the issue I had with "miniature". Rupples (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for feedback. I hadn't even seen this talk section. —Alalch E. 00:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

History section

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

States: In April 2012, the shop applied to expand into an adjacent space, formerly rented by a dried-fruit company. The shop owners aimed to expand the business into selling quick breads, hand-held potpies, cider, and coffee.

What was the outcome? I.e. did the shop expand? Was the application refused? Did the owner change her mind? At present, it's sort of left hanging! Rupples (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

We present the information the sources provide. There hasn't been a follow-up story at least as far as I can tell. ɱ (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
In that case, I don't see the logic in including this. It was 10 years ago. The outcome is known. Surely, it should only be included when a reliable source for the outcome is found, else the reader is left in limbo? Rupples (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

(
)
  • ... that in his book, Michael Krondl said that the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company "serves the freshest donuts you may ever buy"? Source: Krondl, Michael (2014-06-01). The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-61374-673-8.

Improved to Good Article status by Another Believer (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC).

  • Full review underway. Cbl62 (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I first rule out the alt0 hook as (i) it comes across as an advertisement for the subject business, and (ii) its emphasis on what "Michael Krondl" (someone not notable enough to be in the pedia says seems undue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Newness requirement satisfied by GA promotion on 11/26. Article is also long enough and neutrally written. Article was nominated for deletion last month by User:Reywas92 but that discussion closed with a "keep" determination. An earwig check turns up nothing nefarious. That alt1 hook is interesting, neutral, and short enough. The article uses in-line citations to support the hook fact, though not all of the sources are accessible on-line (the core element of the Donut Robot is confirmed). Good faith is assumed as to those elements. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @Onegreatjoke and Cbl62:   seems to be called the "Donut Robot"... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    • @Theleekycauldron: I've changed "doughnut robot" to "Donut Robot" it in the lede in the article, and in the hook above for consistency. I'm pretty sure it's spelled and capitalized in different ways across various sources, but the two sources cited for the first occurrence of "Donut Robot" definitely spell it that way, so it seems wise to be consistent. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

re: recent change

Latest comment: 1 year ago30 comments5 people in discussion

@EEng: Does this work for you? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  • You probably think I'm a jerk, but I'm astonished that you can't see how completely inadequate the coverage on this topic is with respect to GNG. You need to apply more subtle judgment in evaluating sources; this one's a good example. Daily Dozen wasn't on the list of recommended shops, and then maybe one reader (for all we know) wrote in, and Nast was happy to follow up with a meaningless filler list of shops they know nothing about. This is exactly why there are notability guidelines -- an article on a nonnotable topic inevitably becomes a crap magnet for absolutely trivial "sources" like this, because there's nothing else to put in then article. It sounds like this is a charming spot to take the kids, run by two nice ladies, and I wish them well, but it's not notable and it not only cannot, but should not (for the reason just stated) have an article. EEng 01:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think you're a jerk. I just don't have a problem with this entry or amount of sourcing. I'll sleep just fine whether or not there's a Wikipedia entry for this business, so let's just see what the community decides is best for the project. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think you're a jerk -- Hmmm. I'll have to redouble my efforts. EEng 07:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    You can do better. I'm confident of it. Valereee (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    What's the relative harm of having this entry versus not having it? Granted, it's not a superrrrr notable topic, but it's also not clear that it's an immediate GNG fail. I'm always very curious as to why deletionists (pardon me if I'm wrong but EEng strikes me as one) seem so hell-bent on deleting articles like this one. Just feels like a weird dogmatic stance to me that doesn't lead to much net good. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know that I'd call it harm, exactly, but there are reasons for our notability guidelines. Let's avoid calling one another deletionists or saying they're hell-bent on deleting. Being in favor of following policy on notability is not "being a deletionist". Valereee (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    Right, but presenting an incomplete source assessment at AfD is a bit unfair. Have folks searched the Seattle Times archives? Have we exhausted book research? Many sources don't have previews at Google Books. Feels a bit like there's a rush to delete this page as if it's egregiously problematic. Oh well! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yes and these 'reasons' include not having every doughnut stand under the sun get their own article. But this is not just any doughnut stand, neither are the policies writ in stone. I'm not suggesting that there's a nefarious agenda, but on the face of it EEng and co do seem to be "hell-bent" on having the article deleted. I think this is a fair and objective observation of things. Finally, what good arises from the deletion of this article? I just hope AB doesn't get too disheartened from this incident and stop churning out quality content altogether. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    That is an assumption of bad faith. Please stop. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    ???? I literally prefaced my remarks with "I'm not suggesting that there's a nefarious agenda". This "bad faith" card gets thrown around so easily. I'm simply pointing out how much time and energy they have spent trying to get this deleted. Call it "hell-bent" or whatever, but it's obvious that they are not looking to get the article kept. That's just a basic observation! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    In other words, they are looking to get the article deleted in good faith. Very awkward phrasing, but does that satisfy you? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    Why the rush to delete the article instead of taking time to assess other book sources not previewed at Google Books? Why not search the Seattle Times archives and other online databases? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    Totally. That's the whole point of AfD: someone thinks a subject doesn't meet notability guidelines and should be deleted. Then we have a discussion, sometimes lengthy, about the sources and whether they meet the guidelines. The best arguments are those that argue from policy, which is what I've been doing and what EEng has been doing. There's nothing deletionist about it. The simple fact we haven't wandered off yet just means we think this argument is worth our time, not that we're somehow "hell-bent".
    At this point, the reason I think this argument is worth my ongoing time actually has less to do with this article in particular than it does with my concern about other folks' understanding of policy. If those !voting Keep think the current sourcing is even close to adequate, there's a lot of misunderstanding of notability going around. Valereee (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don't understand the focus on current sourcing. We should be focusing on missing sourcing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Kingoflettuce Have no fear! While I think deleting this article would be ridiculous, my interest in making Wikipedia better has nothing to do with the fate of this entry. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I assessed every source that was presented, 20+ sources. (Which btw took me quite a bit of time spent on this article's behalf, as I did it before it was even at AfD.) How is that unfair? Valereee (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I appreciate you took time to create the table and review sources. But the table does not represent all available sources. We all know some folks at AfD will just look at the table then vote delete... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I haven't added my input to the table yet either. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Another Believer, I've said multiple times that you should add those sources to the table. Please, anyone should feel free to add sources they've found that support notability. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I wish there were a better way to list "Facts" or "Analysis" – in other words, the actual content of each source, not just "one paragraph", strike. A paragraph could be 1 sentence in some layouts, or it could be 12. The context of that paragraph is important. And most importantly, what exactly does that paragraph say, and where did that information come from? In addition to who is the source, etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Cielquiparle, there is a way: go through and add exactly what each source said. EEng has done that for a couple. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Valereee Thanks for inviting me to add to the chart and trying to show me how to do it. I spent ages trying to work it out, updated it, and only realized later that it was too late and that I had been updating the wrong table. (Just saying this after the fact, that I'm realizing now that maybe you were angry that I hadn't acknowledged.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    OMG, no! Valereee (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

re: "one reader"

@EEng: I've removed the claim from the lead. I agree, not worth including (and not my doing). However, I find the text "The shop was not listed in Bon Appétit's 2010 overview of 'America's best donuts', but at least one reader wrote in to say it should have been" awkward. The source says, "Below, you'll find recommendations from our readers." I think the article's text should reflect this. Something along the lines of "the magazine's readers". ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The plural readers refers to the collection of readers who wrote in, nationwide, each to mourn the omission of their favorite donut spot. For all we know each spot had support from exactly one reader. The list is just magazine filler -- the writer knows nothing at all about any of the places listed, and simply compiled all the names readers mentioned, and thereby was able to submit an "article" by expending essentially zero work. EEng 16:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@EEng: The source doesn't say "at least one reader wrote in to say it should have been" included. What about "The shop was not listed in Bon Appétit's 2010 overview of 'America's best donuts', but was subsequently included in a follow-up list of reader recommendations" (or similar)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I've implemented the aforementioned wording, since no one else has replied. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Another Believer:@EEng: I wanted to apologize for the mistake in the original edit, and acknowledge that leaving it out from the lede and the subsequent rewording by AB are much better. I would have responded normally but there were so many micro discussions happening in so many places, I just thought, let it be, it's fixed. But now I realize, per EEng's comments on his Talk page, that not acknowledging it probably inflamed things further. I honestly thought this kind of claim/error would have been heavily scrutinized during GA, and I had no real interest in this article personally (which are not excuses for not being extra careful when editing subjects one is not that close to, and usually I am more careful). I only started getting involved again because of the discussion that started at DYK Talk, which wouldn't have happened if not for the problem with the ALT hook I wrote, which AB probably didn't even review since I didn't re-ping, so apologies are in order there, too. (I incorrectly assumed that everyone follows their DYK hooks closely until the end, since they are subject to so much change until right before they post.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
You're worrying too much. I bear no man ill will, not you and (believe it or not) not A.B. EEng 05:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

ParentMap

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation form

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

I put in footnote 50, and for reasons that escape me, I can't correct the formatting. I tried. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen See Reference 32 and my note below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Consolidated text and reference.   Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

100 Things to Do in Seattle Before You Die

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

7&6=thirteen, thanks for updating the entry. I see you've referenced 100 Things to Do in Seattle Before You Die in the "Guides and review websites" section. I'm totally open to your preferred wording and text location, but I should note that the "Books" section already mentions this source. Did you mean to duplicate? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Another Believer I thought content was worth putting in. YMMV. As we all know, there are those who doubt WP:Notability and WP:GNG. I have no stock in the company, and little invested in the edit. Do whatever you think best. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@7&6=thirteen No prob with your changes to the article. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The Stranger

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Update/Reminder: The first source is used in the entry. The second is not. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Added the second as an external link for now. Archiving... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

source assessment

Latest comment: 7 months ago29 comments4 people in discussion
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Eater [2]       The promise of hot mini doughnuts means a constant queue at Daily Dozen Doughnut Company in the Economy Market. It’s fun to watch the little pale blobs float along a river of hot oil in the automatic Donut Robot fryer, two by two — getting flipped halfway down the line — until they’re golden brown on both sides. Sharing a brown paper bag of sprinkle-topped or powdered sugar doughnuts with someone is cool, especially if the doughnuts are hot. ✘ No
Thrillist [3]       one of a list ✘ No
Seattle Eater [4]       one para ✘ No
Fodor's Seattle [5]       bare mention ✘ No
[6]       Does not appear to mention the subject ✘ No
Sunset [7]       one of a list, one para ✘ No
Serious Eats [8]     ~ Inclusion in the chapter "A Half Dozen Donuts We Love" about doughnuts nationwide. Listed second (which may or may not be a rank, but it's prominent). Each of the six companies gets one sizeable paragraph. This one is 8 sentences long and includes a detailed description. Facts we learn:
  • *One popular competitor in Seattle is Top Pot Doughnuts, a chain, but Serious Eats prefers Daily Dozen
  • *DD's differentiators include the fact that its doughnuts are "mini" and plucked from a Donut Robot conveyor belt
  • *Its process may result in a little more oil
  • *Mini doughnuts are tossed in a brown paper bag with sugar, sprinkles, or cinnamon
  • *Mini doughnuts are served so hot that steam rises when you bite in
  • *Texture is "moist, squishy, crunchy with sugar"
  • *Not uncommon to end up eating them before you walk to next stall
  • *Serious Eats recommends sugar-covered mini doughnuts over the frosted ones

Full coverage: While much of Seattle may have a soft spot for Top Pot Doughnuts with locations all over the city, we prefer this little Pike Place Market stall. Sure, you can get fresh doughnuts at plenty of shops -- but at Daily Dozen, min doughnuts are actually pluck from the Donut Robot II conveyer belt, (That may mean a little more oil, but we won't complain.) Tossed into a brown paper bag with sugar, sprinkles, or cinnamon, they're handed over the counter. They're so ht that when you bite one open, steam pours from its interior. Moist, squichy, crunchy with sugar - the little guys tend to disappea before you've even walked to the next stall. (Skip the frosted ones. Straight up sugar is where it's at)>

~ Partial
Vancouver Sun [9]       bare mention ✘ No
Seattle Post-Intelligencer [10]       The famous Pike Place Market post is a family affair that serves up miniature doughnuts to countless tourists and the locals who know to flock to this gem. ✘ No
The Stranger   AGF   AGF   single sentence ✘ No
Seattle Weekly   AGF   AGF   ✘ No
Bon Appetit [11]       one item in a list so long it was created in two parts Not on the list of best donuts, rather a subsequent list of 57 donut shops readers wrote in about, angry their favorite shop wasn't on the first list. ✘ No
Pike Place Market Recipes [12]   AGF   AGF   bare mentions ✘ No
KOMO-TV [13]       really not even a bare mention, just identifying shop owner commenting on a completely different topic: "This is cheating. When you misrepresent yourself, you're cheating," said Barbara Elza, owner of Daily Dozen Donut Company, a Pike Place Market mainstay for nearly 30 years. "I don't even have enough to meet my expenses this month, let alone stash something offshore." Side comment by EEng: Putting this source in the article is cheating. When you misrepresent a source like this, as if it has anything at all to do with the subject of the article, it's cheating. ✘ No
The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin [14]       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. p72, part of a paragraph about the maker of the donut robot ✘ No
Food Lovers Guide to Seattle     ~ Reads in its entirety: A doughnut shop that has been around for over 20 years and still has a line almost all day long, the charm of this place is in its simplicity: fresh, hot mini doughnuts served in a brown paper bag, heating the roof of your mouth on a chilly day, the aroma taunting you as you wait in line. The doughnuts come in dozens or half dozens. The flavors are plain, powdered, cinnamon, or sprinkled (chocolate fudge with sprinkles). The powdered sugar and sprinkled come cold, but the other two come hot. ~ Partial
100 things to do [15]       Very short mention ✘ No
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Have you tried all 26 of these iconic Seattle bites? [16]       USA Today mentioned this place as a foodie stop in the Pike Place Market, affirming that hot doughnuts in a paper sack are sublime. ✘ No
Thrillist [17]       one sentence ✘ No
Eater Seattle       one sentence ✘ No
Seattle Gay Times [18]     ~
Comment by EEng: Completely disagree that this is sigcov, which requires that sources address the topic directly and in detail. The only thing this article says about the subject of this article is: For 23 years Barbara Eliza has been serving up warm donuts at Seattle's biggest, busiest tourist spot, Pike Place Market. Her business, the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, caters to locals and visitors alike, as well as other market vendors who open in the early morning. Period. Everything else is details of the flag dispute.
If there was more coverage of the dispute, then it might be notable, but even then that doesn't make the firm notable 'cause, ya know, WP:NOTINHERITED. But anyway the dispute isn't notable either, apparently.
Comment by Cielquiparle: Completely disagree with the above. A prolonged controversy is exactly the type of topic we expect to see covered in SIGCOV about an organization's history (per WP:NCORP). The flag dispute *is* the story! Yes, we need to discount Elza's quotes (direct/indirect), but in addition to that, the Seattle Gay News includes its own reporting on the controversy, based on fact-finding and sources including neighboring businesses and the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority, which lend additional perspective to the controversy (which was also covered by The Stranger, in this case both a primary and a secondary source).) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC) 		~ Partial
Chicago Tribune (widely syndicated to Baltimore Sun, etc.)     ~ detailed description of Daily Dozen's donut robot in action: You'll see many cameras pointing through the foggy glass here. They're all trained on the "doughnut robot," a mesmerizing contraption that plops rings of batter into oil. Watch as the batter morphs into doughnuts as it 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. ~ Partial
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}}.

Valereee (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Confirming for the nth time: Anyone should feel free to add additional sources to this assessment table. Valereee (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/112408274/our-flag-at-the-market/ ? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, AB, I've added that. I'd consider that the one instance of sigcov in local independent/industry niche RS that I generally am willing to accept. For me we need two instance of sigcov in RS to be outside of the local area, outside of industry niche publications. Valereee (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
No prob! I should also note, there are some additional sources which have not been added to the article yet, including those mentioned by User:SounderBruce above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Anyone should feel free to add sources to the assessment table! Valereee (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Few more:
  • https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/the-best-doughnuts-in-seattle -- In the heart of Pike Place Market, a hypnotic machine (official name: the Mark II Donut Robot) drops rings of yeasted dough into hot oil, then conveys them on a journey from pale and raw to golden-fried confection. The miniature doughnuts that come out the other end are perfectly nice, doused in cinnamon, powdered sugar, sprinkles, or maple and bacon. But the Donut Robot is perhaps the most public tribute to Seattle’s little-known doughnut legacy. Belshaw, a Seattle company founded in 1923, was one of the first to automate doughnut-making; its machines helped transform fried dough rings from homespun treat (a dangerous one, thanks to all that boiling oil) into something you buy at a shop. Today the company is headquartered in Auburn and known as Belshaw Adamatic after a 2007 merger, but remains one of the world’s largest makers of doughnut equipment.
  • https://www.google.com/books/edition/Donuts/qP1TmIfv3_oC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Daily+Dozen+Donuts%22&pg=PT26&printsec=frontcover -- Three paragraphs describing the hairstyle and musical tastes of the guy operating the donut-making machine (beginning Jason Cread, the one-man band who works the Daily Dozen Donuts stand, keeps his black hair long and spiky. When he bops his head to the sounds of a favorite band ... and ending ... he cranks the bass on the boom box an spins the volume dial, digging deeper for a rhythm, any rhythm, to ride for the next fifteen minutes until his shift is over.) before launching into a history of the machine's invention and development.
Oh, come on. I think you know I shared this source because of the donut maker info and not Jason's hair... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
That's what I meant when I said elsewhere that You need to apply more subtle judgment in evaluating sources. Despite what the article semi-implies, there's nothing special about this machine and there are may tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of them throughout the world, so the history of its invention is utterly and completely irrelevant to this article. All we're left with is Jason Cread's hair. EEng 16:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
You're right, I clearly have no idea what I'm doing despite being a daily editor here for 15 years and promoting 150 entries to Good article status. My bad. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not by any means suggesting you're anything like the now-notorious Doug Coldwell, but the I've-got-lots-of-GAs argument is one nobody should touch ever again (with or without a ten-foot pole) -- see User_talk:Doug_Coldwell#An_attempt_at_summarizing_Doug's_word_wall. EEng 16:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for not suggesting I'm like Doug Coldwell by mentioning Doug Coldwell (eye roll)... ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I was serious in drawing the distinction. Coldwell did serious damage to the project by injecting hard-to-untangle nonsense in literally thousands of places we have only begun to discover, and I'm not suggesting you've done anything like that. I'm just saying that I've-got-GAs argument is one to be avoided. EEng 16:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC) P.S. Now do you think I'm a jerk?
GA means you can write what at least one other person has assessed as a well-written, verifiable, neutral article which covers the subject broadly, is currently stable, and has an illustration if possible. It doesn't actually address notability. Which seems odd, but there we have it. It is totally possible to write good articles without understanding notability. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The article has survived an AfD discussion already! You two are implying I don't have a clue what I'm doing when clearly I've not worked on this as a solo project. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I know it has, which is why I did a source assessment: to see if I could figure out why the earlier AfD was closed as keep. I couldn't.
I don't think you don't have a clue. You clearly write good articles that are verifiable. But Pip's appears to have the exact same problem as this one does: the sources don't seem to support notability. Which makes me think you may be misunderstanding how we do that. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I think my "misunderstanding" would've come up during the 150+ good article promotions I've completed. I think you mean well here, 100%, I'm just frustrated by being made to feel like this is a problem with me when really this is just about a topic that's on the bubble of being notable. I've not done a major wrong here, so let's focus on the content and sources and not me, please. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/best-donuts-in-all-50-states-dough-donut-bar-doughnut-vault-pink-box-doughnuts -- Wander into the Pike Place Market anytime between 8am and 5pm, find Daily Dozen Doughnut Co., and plop yourself in front of its Donut Robot, Mark II. (No really, he has a name.) Mark II churns out freshly formed dough, which then hits a bunch of hot oil, and travels on through the conveyor belt to a multi-tiered donut tree. The whole process is more soothing than a damn babbling brook. (And no, "Mark II" is not a "he" who has a name. It's just the name of that model of donut-making machine.)
  • https://www.thrillist.com/eat/seattle/pike-place-market-best-things-to-eat-drink -- Since one of the main quality factors in a mini-donut -- such as those produced here -- is how quickly they go from fryer to mouth, these might actually be the perfect donut. Barely seconds will pass between when they’re plucked off the machine, thrust into a bag, and well on their way to burning your mouth.
---Another Believer (Talk) 14:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Worth mentioning impact on co-owner of Pip's Original Doughnuts & Chai? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Meh, so another northwest donut maker (of almost identically questionable notability: all sources are local except for a single 1-para entry in a list) called the place out as an inspiration. AB, I think you may be mistaking locally famous for notable. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not mistaking anything here. All I'm doing to trying to collect sources and other claims to potentially add to the article. Also, I'm frustrated by the fact that a table has been presented as if it represents all available sourcing, which is not true. This gives passerby deletionists a reason to quickly look at a table and vote delete, when there's clearly more to be considered. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
AB, okay, I'll say the exact thing to you that I say to every submitter at AfC: Can you show us the three best sources for asserting notability? Please only one that is either local or industry-niche publications; the other two must represent significant coverage in a non-local, non-industry-niche independent reliable source.
That is what I was looking for (and what I'm always looking for) when I do a source assessment: the three sources that will allow me to conclude a subject is notable. And if you haven't yet found three such sources, what makes you think the subject is notable? Valereee (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

More sources

  • "The heart of Seattle; Pike Place Market brims with great food options" by Kevin Pang (August 18, 2013), The Baltimore Sun: "You'll see many cameras pointing through the foggy glass here. They're all trained on the "doughnut robot," a mesmerizing contraption that plops rings of batter into oil. Watch as the batter morphs into doughnuts as it 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." ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "A Fish Tail . . ." by George Medovoy (December 17, 2009), Travel + Leisure: "We then walked to the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, no more than a tiny corner in the vast market. The doughnuts sold here are only the centers - no bigger than ping-pong balls - and are nice and warm. I ordered mine sprinkled with cinnamon. Half the fun is watching them being tossed into the air for a crash landing into your brown bag." ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "Washington and Oregon offer everything you could want and more in the US's Northwest" (August 27, 2016), Irish Examiner: As the oldest continuously open farmers market in the US and home to more than 200 stall operators, the market is the epicentre of the Seattle food scene and attracts 10 million visitors per year, or more than 20,000 a day on average. The market's Daily Dozen Doughnut Company sells about as many doughnuts each day." Not in-depth but provides an interesting stat. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    •   Added ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
      @Valereee: Is there any chance you would be interested in revisiting a discussion about notability? I am genuinely interested in trying to understand how this topic is not notable, and I would like to have the discussion without the chaos of last year's AfD. I'm particularly interested in sharing a few sources at a time, so we can create a new source assessment table from scratch. If you are willing, I can start a new discussion below. Hoping for collaboration and learning here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
      I would really like that, AB! I've got family in this weekend, then dental surgery Monday, so not sure how much I'll be around for the next week or so, but I would genuinely be interested in discussing this with you, too. Valereee (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
      @Valereee: Great! No worries at all, I am in no rush here. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Another source

Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

This shop and its Belshaw Brothers "Donut Robot Mark II" are discussed at some length in chapter 3 of Donuts: An American Passion by John Edge, published by Penguin Books in 2006, ISBN 9781440628641. Ann Teak (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Some length" I suppose is technically correct, I suppose. 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 tongues, 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 KEEP MUSIC EVIL, 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) 05:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ann Teak and Umimmak: Can either of you (and other editors, of course!) confirm if you think this source counts towards notability? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I feel strong enough to !vote in an AFD discussion, but WP:SIGCOV reads "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material., and most of the factual information in this book about Daily Dozen Doughnut Company as I read it is fluff which wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia entry -- I truly did try to find everything which this chapter could be used to cite in that above paragraph. I guess you could use it as a source that it uses the Donut Robot Mark II, but you've already got sources discussing this. Ostensibly ~8 or so paragraphs of the chapter's ~19 are in some way about the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company/its employee/its Mark II, I guess to argue the other side -- a fair bit of ink is dedicated to the shop. It is more than a trivial mention I suppose. Assuming you have this source? I have access to an epub *cough cough* if that helps, maybe you'll notice something I didn't. Umimmak (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@Umimmak I'm less concerned about finding additional details not included in the draft, and more interested in whether or not the source helps demonstrate notability. To me, eight paragraphs seems significant, but I'm not the one who needs convincing about notability. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean it's eight paragraphs... but I was able to condense all it actually says about the business, not the machine or the random employee, in a few sentences above, so I could see the counter argument about it not actually getting into much detail. Umimmak (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@Umimmak: OK, thanks. I'm trying to understand how this entry landed on the delete side of the fence, and unfortunately, there are several maybe sources like this one. I'll see if any other editors weigh in here, or later, if a new source assessment table is created. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"The doughnuts are gone, and only the holes remain", absolute legend. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I have no COI. Once I bought a bag of assorted donuts, and I thought they were pretty good. (shrug) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I have absolutely zero suspicion of a COI. This is simply a prolific editor who is interested in restaurants and interested in their local area. Valereee (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Dozen_Doughnut_Company/Archive_1&oldid=1193643235"