Deletion of Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

Comment: Strong, multiple, continuous coverage by several undisputedly |reliable sources means that it passes our |general notability guideline with flying colours. No sane reason exists to dismiss sources only because most of them are "regional", especially if the "region" includes millions of persons. The "delete" comments above seem to squirm into a personal interpretation of notability which isn't supported by any guideline apart perhaps for  -in any case, alternative notability guidelines are supposed to ''extend'' GNG, not to ''replace'' it, so the requirement of CORP of sources not being local is completely moot. Reliable sources are reliable sources and significant coverage is significant coverage ''regardless of the audience''. An academic journal on some exotic mathematics field would have probably much less audience than NYT, but nobody seriously argue to dismiss it as a RS. To pick up "local" as a proxy for "nobody cares about it" is deeply biased
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:CORP)

Comment: No evidence of the sort of notability required by . A few reviews certainly don't do it, otherwise every restaurant open for more than a few weeks would deserve an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: passes  as well as 's requirement for "at least regional" coverage. I personally feel that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are too broad or too vague, and that a guideline written specifically for restaurants might be written with tighter standards, resulting in deletion of this article. But with the existing guidelines as they are, the requirements are met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)

Comment: Satisfies , has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Also, AFD is not for cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: appears, on the face of it, to have received coverage from a number of notable secondary sources.  Not quite sure how it currently fails our  criterion, perhaps the nominator would be kind enough to expand on his accusation of "no particular notability" vs said policy, and if it's a promotional review, perhaps nominator could remove overt advertising or add some information to the talkpage to assist those involved.  Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Meets the |General Notability Guideline, and Wikipedia:CORP#Primary_criteria, which specifically says "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." and the New York Times is at least a Regional source. (Actually it's international. I can see the argument that the review going in the Regional section means it's only Regional, but that's good enough. It's a paper from a different state for goodness sakes. Clearly more than Local
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per  we should not attempt to list every restaurant, nor have an article on them. If this article satisfies a technical interpretation of , then that guideline needs tweaking to clarify that getting some good reviews for a restaurant is not sufficient to establish notability. While this article would be excellent at wikirestaurant, it is simply not encyclopedic in nature and does not belong here. The restaurant business has established procedures for having reviews published: people like to read what's hot; publishers like to fill space with readable stuff; restaurants like the exposure. That process means we need to examine sources carefully and discount routine coverage, even when that routine coverage involves top media outlets
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:ORG)

Comment: slightly weakish but still). The "Reception" section could definitely be shortened - it is that section that perhaps gives the article something of a promotional impression. However, there appears to be a reasonably solid case for notability. There are quite a few NJ regional sources (not just the local town newspaper), as well as some regional awards, mentioned in the lede. Quite a bit of coverage in NYT (in the NJ section but still, that counts as regional, and not just local, coverage). Plus the restaurant was featured in a national NBC program - a national source. I would have liked to see a bit more - e.g. some mention in regional guidebook(s), but basically there is enough here to pass  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:GNG)

Comment: the plethora of references on the page make it rather obvious that it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per the substantial coverage in |reliable sources. Notability is easily established. This article is well-written, not promotional; it should be at GA or FAC, not AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I may be missing something, so I'm not saying "delete" at the moment, but I do not see any assertion of notability. If this article is kept we are really opening the floodgates: every two-bit cafe in the world will want an article because local media invariably mentions every food outlet a couple of times, and we don't keep one article because it is well written and the restaurant has good reviews, while deleting another article on a local cafe because it is not (yet) well written and has bad reviews. Then there is every other business covered by a couple of trade magazines which invariably cover all vaguely relevant organizations: is Joe's Printing notable because it is mentioned in a couple of local papers and trade mags? I'm not saying "OTHERSTUFF", I'm asking how  applies to this restaurant
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: To me, local reviews are not "independent" coverage for a local establishment, and while the New York Times is read nationally (even internationally), it is still a local paper for the New York area, it clearly still covers regional topics, and its coverage appeared in the Regional section (re discussion above as to NYT being available internationally - so are all websites where not blocked by nations, and pretty much any written work can be distributed internationally, the point is focus).  There appears to be no significant coverage of this restaurant outside of its local area and, while the article is well written, I don't see how it has the actual notability necessary to meet with  nor . Further, many local restaurants get a one off appearance on Food Network or NBC...ONE appearance isn't significant coverage. I have not seen any policy nor guideline that says that the "Zagat" survey is relevant nor noteworthy here. From the site, it appears to be a user-based rating system, much like ePinions, only you have to pay to see them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CORP)

Comment: per  and . If two cites by the New York Times and the NBC station are regional coverage, any hole-in-the-wall should be so lucky to get substantial coveral like the television station's review
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)

Comment: I have sat and watched this for several days and have decided after reading lot of arguements that its a boderline case which i have to lean torwards delete. as it fails , Just because there are sources on a topic does not mean we should have an article on the topic. My mother worked in the restaurant review media outlet during her college years in san diego, if anyone reads them regularly like my mother still does (even though she is an accountant) one is quick to realize they are often press releases called masquerading journalism. Get me something outside of Awards, Restaunts Reviews and the such and i might reconsider; but right now i am leaning torwards getting rid of it.  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This entry does not satisfy the more specific policy - .  All coverage is local and regional, and that includes the two mentions in the ''New York Times'' appearing in the regional section there.  One piece of information that was put forth towards notability in other discussions was established as inaccurate and removed by me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant&diff=375598707&oldid=375571044 here.  What we have here is a puff piece written about a popular restaurant based on a series of local news paper and magazine reviews.  There is absolutely no reason for an encyclopedia to contain content on this location
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: per . Local reviews of a restaurant aren't enough, as these are often promotionally tinged. The type of coverage available to us is of a completely different standard with restaurants like Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, which receive serious (not just promotional) coverage that goes way beyond local media. http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22Gordon+Ramsay+at+Claridge's%22&cf=all It is somehow poignant that we don't have an article on Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, but have an article on Daryl Wine Bar & Restaurant—for reasons that are related to Scientology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)