Deletion of Sal's Pizza (Dallas)

Comment: Three reports from the same local paper do not pass  by any stretch
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: people would do well to remember that "|it's just a local source" is considered an ''invalid'' argument for deletion, and that neither |general notability nor |reliable sources say anything against sources being local. "Local" is just from |organizations guideline; also avoiding "regular coverage" is a requirement for the |events guideline, and both are ''alternates'' to GNG, not replacing it. If the general criteria are met, having the sources being local or routine will say nothing against the provided coverage. This decision should be taken because of the strength of sources alone, not extraneous criteria like local or routine which have never been part of the general notability consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSLOCAL||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:ROUTINE||WP:organizations)

Comment: Regular coverage such as police blotters, local business openings and reviews which are part of outine|everyday coverage are not considered eligible for establishing notability. This is otherwise known as ''significant coverage''. You are confusing simple, everyday coverage as opposed to significant coverage. Just because there is mention or a review does not establish notability; there must be significant coverage about the subject. The pieces cited show nothing except what they serves and that the reviewer liked/disliked it. To properly establish notability, we must ask ourselves what is it that makes the company notable? Is it a fast growing chain that the industry is paying attention to? Has it contributed to the local economy in some meaningful way? Does it have some social impact on the community that gives it notice? What in these sources actually makes the company notable? Having a good tasting pizza is not notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: Despite claims to the contrary, the chain does not meet the standard. The First two are local reviews, which fall under the "regular coverage" clause of the notability guidelines. Additionally, it is clearly stated that best of lists and the like are not considered valid sources when establishing notability, so that knocks out the last. Notability has not been established. Pawsplay's, the author of the article, claim about the article on Sal's Pizza in Boston still being around is no more than ther stuff exists. The sources provided are ineffectual in establishing notability because the author made the mistake of confusing actual coverage with trivial mention, which is at the root of the issue. Notability requires quantitative coverage as opposed to trivial coverage which only establishes verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: spaced ndash}}Could you please be more specific about what you have stated as the "regular coverage clause" in ? There is no such clause of GNG that is written this way. Did you make this up
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Restaurants are notable if various large circulated newspapers and magazines cover them, regardless of them being local coverage or not.  It meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Topic meets , per significant coverage in
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The first half of the article is a violation of  the second is coverage of a non-notable, but tragic, crime that happened to be against an employee of the restaurant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)