Deletion of El Modelo

Comment: The article was nominated for speedy deletion under , which certainly doesn't apply now, and under  (advertising), which also doesn't seem to apply.  The restaurant has received positive reviews, which we can report faithfully without our article constituting advertising.  For example, the phrase “critically acclaimed tamales” in the article may seem promotional, but it seems to be an accurate report, as that one sentence cites four sources, the first one of which says “In New Mexico, perhaps no one makes tamales as revered as El Modelo”.Erasing the template is not the preferred way to contest speedy deletion, but I don't believe it's sufficient cause to bring the article to AfD.  The article now may be of modest size, but it's well structured, and well sourced, citing reputable sources such as ''USA Today'' (more than once) and ''Travel + Leisure''.  There are no obvious problems, and while there may always be subtle issues which aren't obvious, there's nothing so wrong with the article that it can never be fixed and must be deleted.Finally, the article is not yet 24 hours old.  It's off to a good start.  We should keep it.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:A7||WP:G11)

Comment: The coverage here is significant enough to pass .  The reviews and write-ups in magazines and travel guides are beyond the scope of "passing mention" of "directory listing" and  makes no discrimination of opinion pieces
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The restaurant does not meet the standards of otability as established in  because all the sources provided fall under outine or are rimary. (Routine coverage in this case refers to reviews, top 10 lists, travel guide coverage and best of lists, even in national publications) They consist almost exclusively of reviews, listings from travel guides, or from local business directories; not one of the sources is actually about the company itself. Yes some of the sources provided are unto themselves S|reliable, however the reliability of the source does not connote automatic notability on the subject. While the restaurant is local and local restaurants can be notable, these sources are not sufficient to prove its notability, which means it has to go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:R||WP:P||WP:RS)

Comment: The sources are largely listings in travel guides, which do not establish solid notability. Inclusion in top-ten lists and similar specifically does ''not'' establish notability per . One of the USA Today listings is local and lists the restaurant as 7th 4th of 10. The other is a passing mention of less than a sentence. The Travel + Leisure listing is likewise a relatively short blurb in a list of 32, although it is nation-wide, so that's something
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: you are all missing the point, reviews fall under '''outine''' - that is this is a routine thing that all local publications do and notability is thus not established  because all restaurants are reviewed at one point or another. Reviews are fluff pieces that do not garner the same rigorous standards of editorial oversight that you see in quality sources. They, by their nature, are usually full of word of mouth or primary sources that are being parroted back as filler in the reviews. When it comes down to it, they are pure subject pieces that do not have the rigorous oversight of more traditional news stories found in the news or business section of publications. Travel guides fall under '''irectory''', they are a listing of businesses within a locality and thus they do not establish notability. Finally, '''otability''' states that publication by a reliable source does not automatically confer notability because of the of those points I just listed. You need to find quality sources that present why the subject is notable, these sources are not quality. Having a bunch of trivial sources also does not confer notability because a pile of trash is still composed of lots of pieces of trash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:D||WP:N)