Open main menu

Swahili LessonsEdit

Seeing as I have the supreme honor to be the first to discuss Voodoo more Swahili lessons? Can this be true? SCPM08 (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There really hasn't been any since they started staying open 24 hours a day. Grapeofdeath (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I like Safeway donuts better. No way is this article of "low importance" in any regard. It's a store that sells donuts layered in sugary cereal and bacon. Cool. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

questionable dataEdit

70 employees with $600,000 / year revenue? If they paid 100% of revenue to employees = $8k each (hardly a living wage and none left over for rent, COGs, marketing etc). Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  • It makes sense if you consider that the company relies almost entirely on part-time employees that are paid minimum wage. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that many of them only work a handful of hours in a given week. Constablequackers (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OE sourceEdit

I think we might need to protect this pageEdit

Apparently, conspiracy theorists are falsely accusing this place of some really messed up stuff, we might need to protect this page just in case so no one intentionally vandalizes it.

Might need protection disruptive editing in general, as seen this week. AHampton (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Houston expansionEdit

---Another Believer (Talk) 02:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Voodoo doc filmEdit

Message deleted by user @Graywalls: from his TALK page, titled "Voodoo Video": Hi there, I see we are getting at odds over the voodoo video, which I've restored with a secondary source, since you complained of it lacking one. I generally cn tag or source such items, rather than simply deleting them, which is what I had done on Voodoo — updated a pre-existing dead url. (I am not the editor who added it in the first place.) Most films made are Indie films, and can be a legitimate source of reference, particularly documentaries. This one was produced by Wrong Way Pictures in Portland, and is not a "personal video", as you classed it when deleting, since it premiered in Portland at the Hollywood Theatre, as I recall. You seem invested in removing it, though, and I'm just wondering why. I doubt that the Globe Trekker reference was spam, either, just the wrong article/url (here's the video: AHampton (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC) AHampton (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@AHampton: I removed the YouTube content, because I don't believe the addition is consistent with WP:YT <--this is a clickable link, by the way. As for general inclusion of materials into the article, I understand it needs to be reliably published per WP:PUBLISHED. As you know, anyone with experience can be an indie director and as such, to make it open for anyone to place a film made about a particular topic onto the topic would mean Wikipedia would be a gumball of external links. The video that is the subject of contention is described as "Anna Maj Michelson, Magda Diaz of" sourced on the author's own YouTube account; and I'm unable to find that this piece of work has received notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Graywalls: Please stop your edit-warring. There is no ban on YouTube user hosted videos and I think it passes WP:YT. The film is the singular Voodoo Doughnut documentary, and had a theatrical release; it's degree of success as a film is not the criteria here. It is a 14 year-old short, so you won't find much current press, though it is mentioned in and currently linked on the website for PDXccentric Guidebook ( And, FYI: encyclopedias are where people seek out lesser-known and obscure information pertinent to a particular subject which, otherwise, might not ever be found. That is why I'd updated the old link (archived: to begin with.
    • I'd like to see some other editors weigh in on this. AHampton (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
At the time you restored the link, you didn't have anything indicating the film was anything more than some person that made a documentary about a place, which quite frankly people do often on YouTube. So with the information that was available, the removal wasn't uncalled for. As for the "spam", I checked the source, no mention of anything voodoo at the linked page. Graywalls (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No, when I replaced the link, I did only that. When I restored it, I added a secondary source. Research takes more time, but removals are often undermining to the whole of knowledge. As for the spam... as I wrote then, it's not spam, it's just not the right link about the same show. You seem to delete a lot of things that simply require updating or further research, which I don't think is productive to the aim of Wikipedia.AHampton (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
If a claim is made and a cited page doesn't support the claim, it's fair game to have it dismissed. Unfortunately, it's extremely common for people to slip in unsupportable claims or link to unrelated pages for promoting the contents or simply adding links and hoping that their contribution won't be scrutinized. Although, I'm concerned that your edit like this indicates policies be darned, you'll do what you want. That was after I linked to the relevant policy. Graywalls (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@AHampton:I've reviewed several captures of and it was revealed that they routinely shared user created YouTube videos. Aside form a line mention in an article about a routine announcement about a store location opening, I see no evidence that this video received any notability and it isn't hosted anywhere but on the video sharing pages of the authors, so I'm inclined to believe leaving it removed is appropriate. Adding independent media would be under WP:LINKFARM and if it was intended to be useful information, then I believe it would have to satisfy reliable and self published YouTube video often lacks editorial oversight to ensure filming presents the perspective in a neutral manner. Overall, I believe not including it is proper. I think a formal discussion on this matter would be awesome since it would help form consensus on such matters for future reference. Graywalls (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm with AHampton on this one so I vote "keep." This isn't a shaky-cam personal video that someone slapped together while standing in line for a few Blazer Blunt doughnuts with their iPhone camera and later posted on YouTube for a handful of their friends to watch. It was indie documentary that screened in at least one theater and, I'm assuming, received at least some local coverage back in the day from Portland-based publications like The Portland Mercury and Willamette Week. Unfortunately, it's a 14+ year-old film and the online archives for these publications aren't as extensive as we might all like. Based on these factors, I think it should be included. Furthermore, Voodoo Doughnuts is a small chain of doughnuts shops. I don't think such stringent standards should be applied to sources for small/independent businesses here on Wikipedia. If you're going to set the bar to a level where everything has to be from a daily paper, a magazine, or a slick film produced by a major studio, roughly 4/5s of all articles on this website would need to be radically chopped down or removed entirely. Constablequackers (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
There's no sliding scale for source standards and appropriate external links based based on the organization size. To comment on your last sentence, article for deletion actually queues up quite a bit. this list is just for April 3rd, 2019. Graywalls (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there is. It's one of most unspoken but commonplace things you'll find on Wikipedia. Without allowing for a certain degree of laxness when it comes to sources for, in this case, a small business, these articles couldn't/wouldn't exist. I don't know if you're new to the site, but debates over relevance of articles, the worthiness of sources, and so on go back to pretty much its formation and have yet to be entirely resolved. More on how this applies to this particular scenario can be found below. Constablequackers (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion criteriaEdit

Questions on inclusion of self published contents and slip streaming things into existing contents.

I'm still foggy after reading through WP:YT and WP:ELNO given a line like. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Please see "Voodoo doc film" section in this talk page. Initially, I removed a YouTube video from the article here. The video was made by three individuals and hosted on one of the individual creators' personal YouTube. The subject of video is about the article's company. Anyone with a camcorder, some skills and editing can call themselves a director. So if someone, or a group of indie directors make a short video about a company, when would it be generally acceptable to be inserted? At the time I removed it, there was no context of why it should have been there. It was restored later which referenced a source that mentioned the video (one line) in an announcement in another city that a location of VooDoo was opening in that city. On Wikipedia, it's too common to see something like "notable people such as A, B, C, D, E..." only to see F, G, H and so on getting added onto it. I've even come across people who go and insert certain people/companies as examples into many articles. Since YouTube carries monetizing potential, it's especially a concern that motivates people to find a way to insert something into a high view count articles. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC).RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC). Graywalls (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This would be the opposite of a slipstream case. (As previously stated in the section where this new section belongs); Gimme Doughnut is a 2005 documentary film about the subject made by a film production company that had a theatrical release at the Hollywood Theatre. Your monetizing argument is a real stretch... That production company did not bother getting the long-dead link updated after folding its website when the director moved to Spain, so its obviously not them looking for hits. Again... a little research is better than a lot of deletions, which you seem to demonstrate a fondness for. I am particularly concerned with your mis-labeling of spam on certain content deletions. AHampton (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, I agree with AHampton. A deletionist approach to this scenario simply doesn't make sense. A small amount of research into the documentary, its participants, and how it all came together proves why it should be included here. While I can see why removing videos that, as you note, may attempt to exploit Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to them over on YouTube, that clearly isn't what's happening here. Furthermore, the documentary serves as a sort of time capsule that captures what's become an iconic Portland-based business during its earlier years before it went on to appear on national TV shows, get talked about by Anthony Bourdain, open multiple locations around the world, and so on. Furthermore, should a briefly mentioned source or link on Wikipedia really necessitate a lengthy disclaimer explaining its inclusion? Constablequackers (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Well stated, Constablequackers. Can we get some more opinions to conclude this tiresome diversion? AHampton (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I have to go with AHampton and Constablequackers on this one. While Graywalls has very good general arguments (and I sometimes make several of them myself), they don't appear to be applicable to this particular work.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I too go with AHampton and Constablequackers. We have some niche donut shop and there is a niche documentary made about it, which is no surprise. Might be useful to the reader to see the documentary, but wow we could get into a slippery slope with this one if we start allowing every UGC to be added to any article, just cause it is interesting. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • [summoned by bot]. First thing, OP please review best practices for forming an WP:RFC. The RfC starts with a statement in which the only question isn't the real question. I had to read the thread above to understand what was happening. That said, I agree it should be omitted. Not because it's on YouTube, not because it should have a bigger theatrical run, etc. but because the quality is terrible and it provides almost nothing of substance to the reader. It's a 144p video, but the actual documentary takes up less than half of those pixels, such that the picture is barely intelligible. As far as I can tell, this isn't well-researched, well-edited information about the history of this establishment but "stories about employees and customers having fun at the donut shop". I stopped watching halfway through, when we had moved from one employee's knowledge of Swahili (irrelevant to the subject) to another employee (or customer?) talking about putting stirrers through his penis (hopefully irrelevant to the subject). That it did show in a theater doesn't mean anything. Anyone can rent a theater for a showing or have a friend at a theater -- especially in a place like Portland. In short, omit because the quality makes it a great failure of WP:EL. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment: There was a clear consensus to keep the link until Rhododendrites' comment on 10 April 2019, after which no one commented further. Relisting to give editors the opportunity to discuss this further.

    Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Omit, because as User:Rhododendrites said, "the quality makes it a great failure of WP:EL" Peter K Burian (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Omit. The bot summoned me. Ordinarily I would tend towards inclusion of third-party documentaries of boutique local flavor establishments, but the low quality and odd format lead me to believe that readers will not be served by this video. It does establish the folksy iconoclast atmosphere of the place, but the article does that just fine without an excursion to a ten minute illegibly low-res video depending on titles and shots of text nobody can read. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Here, I found this legible version edited down to 6m16s which I would wholeheartedly support including. EllenCT (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for finding this, but FWIW this resolves the first half of my rationale for omitting, but not the second. I'd still prefer to see this version omitted. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm all for the better version. I think the footage does offer the reader insight into what the place is like that words alone do not convey. (Personally, I'd had to see it live to believe what I'd read and heard, when I lived in Portland. The donuts are average, with unusual decorations and packaging, but, other than that, the dedication to "keep Portland weird" culture is its outstanding feature, and is rewarded with massive line-ups most days, and that weirdness shows in the film.) Sure, it's weird: Voodoo is weird, proudly weird.AHampton (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
        • [summoned by bot]. omit or improve. I'd agree that an illegible video is useless to readers (viewers?) but that a legible one could offer useful context for what seems to this outsider almost too weird to believe. (People pay money for this stuff?) yoyo (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Voodoo Doughnut" page.