Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sal's Pizza (Dallas)

:{{la|Sal's Pizza (Dallas)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Sal's Pizza (Dallas)}})

Non-notable local restaurant. Only sources appear to be Dallas-area news outlets, with one mention being a rather trivial listing of restaurants in the entire metro area. I counted several pizza places in that list, with just two or three brief sentences devoted to the subject of the article. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

: The Best of mention is not a trival listing; despite the whimsical naming scheme, those are annual roundups of the best local establishments. Yes, the sources are Dallas-area, which means they serve 2+ million people. D Magazine - Is Dallas not notable? Sal's has won recognition from two independent, credible news sources. In combination with the restaurant's longevity, that should be enough to establish notability. The Sal's Pizza (New England chain) article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%27s_Pizza_(New_England_chain) has been online since 2008, and lists no awards. Sal's Pizza, in Dallas, has been around since 1982 and has won several awards. If you delete Sal's, by these standards, Restaurants_in_Dallas,_Texas is going to start being a very small category! D Magazine and Dallas Observer are verifiable, reliable, independent. No original research is required to furnish why the restaurant is notable; those sources have noted it. Awards and positive reviews are the baseline of significant coverage for a restaurant, are they not? Merely because no citations have been provided for non-Dallas news sources does not mean they do not exist, or could not in the future. Pawsplay (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Topic meets WP:GNG, per significant coverage in:

:*[http://www.dallasobserver.com/bestof/2003/award/best-reason-to-think-youre-in-brooklyn-20604/ "Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn 2003"], Dallas Observer. Retrieved 2012-02-03.

:*{{cite web | url=http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/cityofate/2010/01/how_bout_them_knockers_sals_pi.php | title=How 'Bout Them Knockers: Sal's Pizza | publisher=[http://blogs.dallasobserver.com The Dallas Observer] |no-tracking=yes | date=January 4 2010 | accessdate=February 03, 2012 | author=Faries, Dave}}

::Also, here's a short article:

:*[http://www.dallasobserver.com/bestof/2003/award/best-cheap-italian-20637/ "Best Cheap Italian Food 2003"], Dallas Observer. Retrieved 2012-02-04.

::{{mdash}}Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Only local news. SL93 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment - How does this make the topic non-notable? Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - 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 WP:Other 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. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment{{spaced ndash}}Could you please be more specific about what you have stated as the "regular coverage clause" in WP:GNG? There is no such clause of GNG that is written this way. Did you make this up?! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reply - Regular coverage such as police blotters, local business openings and reviews which are part of 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. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::* The Audience section of the notability guidelines for organizations and companies looks for "at least one regional, national, or international source." I'm completely unfamiliar with the publications being used for sourcing here. If it can be demonstrated that they constitute "regional" coverage -- that is, that their readership, both online and offline, extends beyond Dallas -- then I think this clears the notability hurdle by a millimeter or two :). I'll see if I can determine this myself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:::* Both D Magazine and the Dallas Observer are themselves notable; you could familiarize yourself reasily simply by reading their Wikipedia pages. :) Pawsplay (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::::* I recognize that. Indeed, I used our article on the Dallas Observer to conclude that, while the publication is notable, it is not a regional publication. That the publication is notable does not necessitate that everything it writes about is, too. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:* Those are not merely "reviews" or trivial mentions, those are awards. D Magazine serves the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, which as noted in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-Fort_Worth encompasses 12 counties. D Magazine is a glossy monthly magazine. You want to call The New Yorker a local magazine? It seems to me the primary criticisms of the sources are people who are not familar with D/FW. Sal's has won awards from two different news sources that serve more than two million people, not counting people outside the metroplex who take the magazine. It's not called Big D for nothing. I don't even understand the objection itself; Sal's a neighborhood restaurant that has won city-wide awards. Among Dallas restaurants, Sal's is notable; that seems sufficient. The underlying argument seems to be that Dallas restaurants are not notable. Pawsplay (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::*The New Yorker's readership extends way beyond the NY metro area. I bet its print edition is stocked in Beijing airports. Somehow I doubt D Magazine, the "Dallas Guide to Restaurants, Nightlife, and Things to Do" is getting international distribution, or even distribution outside of DFW. That's not a valid comparison. And we look for notability that is beyond mere local notability. That is part of a guideline. A neighborhood restaurant that has won city-wide awards can't be presumed to have notability beyond its local city in the absence of sourcing that confirms this. And the D Magazine bit is a trivial mention. Sal's Pizza is presented as one of eight top restaurants in one of six neighborhoods (Oak Lawn) in one of Dallas' five areas (Central). I'm not going to take the time to count every restaurant in the D Magazine list, but there appear to be in excess of 150, in which Sal's gets a 3 sentence bullet point. So...I'm sorry, that's an extremely trivial mention. There's no way that source can be used to establish notability. This leaves us with the Observer source, which is demonstrably local. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Just wanted to note that the restaurant seems to receive strong and not-just-mentions local coverage.[https://www.google.com/search?pg=PA357&dq=%22Sal%27s+Pizza%22+dallas&hl=en&q=%22Sal%27s%20Pizza%22%20dallas&sa=N&tab=pw&surl=1#q=%22Sal%27s+Pizza%22+dallas&hl=en&tbm=nws&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&psj=1&ei=xk0xT8uMMabu0gGE7KH9Bw&ved=0CA4QpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b5768f21b6260e72&biw=1280&bih=807]. Perhaps someone will tell me why that's not sufficient, I recall debates about such things before, but currently no delete !votes really do that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Restaurants are notable if various large circulated newspapers and magazines cover them, regardless of them being local coverage or not. It meets WP:GNG Dream Focus 16:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• (Weak) keep (whatever that means). Individual restaurants, that's always a tricky matter. In this case, the article (now) comes with some local, verifiable, and reliable sources which, in my mind, make it cross the GNG threshold, even if barely. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::Just about any popular local restaurant is going to get some local coverage and when that restaurant is local to a major metropolitan area then it will likely get even more coverage and it will more likely be in major new sources. This to me amounts to WP:ROUTINE and is not indicative of significant notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Small town papers cover everything in town. That's routine coverage. A large city on the other hand does not cover every single restaurant. Positive reviews from multiple reliable sources make it notable. Dallas has 1,197,816 in the city, with 6,371,773 in its metropolitan area. Dream Focus 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Since most of the news sources are behind a paywall I cannot say for certain what each one is about, but several from the snippets provided in the search results explicitly fit the definition of routine coverage or trivial mentions. That the only mentions are from Dallas news sources says it all. Were it actually notable I would expect some news coverage from outside the Dallas area. Certainly I would expect there to be a whole news article, not a review, dedicated to discussing the restaurant as a major eating establishment in the area. Really, I would prefer some significant mentions in a paper based well outside the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. I can't even find mentions from Fort Worth-area news outlets.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete because I see no evidence of sourcing/coverage that is more than local. Dallas is a large locale, certainly, but I don't think this is what is meant by "regional" coverage, which is the established bare minimum for a topic like this. I'm saying "tentative" instead of "weak" because...well, I don't know, really. I'm not 100% certain on this one, but for now I think it's a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:Where do you see anything about "regional" coverage? Dream Focus 22:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::"[A]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Goodvac (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:::That's a secondary guideline. WP:GNG has already been met. Dream Focus 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Trivial local coverage. Everything I've seen has been reviews and blogs. I don't think we want to greenlight every big-city restaurant that's been reviewed in a local paper or two. --JaGa^talk 04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::WP:ITSLOCAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? That !vote was easy to debunk ;-) Diego (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - promo reviews and local news - there are great off wiki places for such as this promotion of food outlets. - Youreallycan 18:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::...but this one might hold some weight. Being local is not relevant, but what if the sources found can be seen as promotional? I'd like to find out what arguments are usually used with respect to reviews by professional critics; I consider [http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/cityofate/2010/01/how_bout_them_knockers_sals_pi.php this] to be significant, but I could understand that someone could find [http://www.dallasobserver.com/bestof/2003/award/best-reason-to-think-youre-in-brooklyn-20604/ this one] bordering the routine and not significant. Somebody want to comment on this? Diego (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

::: The [http://www.dallasobserver.com/bestOf/ Best Of] rewards are not routine. Any establishment in the Dallas area that wins one is more than likely going to display their certificate in a place of pride. Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn means "Best New York-style pizza and Italian comfort food" in Dallas. I can understand why someone unfamiliar with the publication might, at first reading, mistake "Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn" for a casual mention by a beat writer, but if you will review the categories, you will see that many of the awards are named that way, even if the award is actually for an established category. Those are are actual annual awards, with one, maybe two or three or three winners out of each category for entire Dallas area. Considering that the Observer doesn't hand out an award for NY slices every year, this is basically a case where they split the Best Pizza category specifically in order to recognize Sal's. Pawsplay (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:::: From WP:Corp: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. That being said, on what basis is your claim being made? How is the Dallas Morning News Best of list different than Boston Magazine's annual Best of list? They give a plaque which the winners get, and they usually post it. Can you state what the criteria is for making the list? Is it some sort of metric, or is it a popularity poll? What makes this "Best of" list any different than any other one published by any other publication in the world? The answer you and others have been giving, It appeared in the biggest paper in the state of Texas therefore it is notable is not a valid reason to keep the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Jeremy, the link provided does not just illustrate inclusion in a "best of" list, it's also accompanied by a review so it can still be used to confer notability as "significant coverage". My doubt is at what point a critical review stops from being routine and begins being significant. Often at AfD there's a view that all critical reviews (such as travel guides and restaurant critics) are routine, but I don't think that this view is sensible. Why being true to the letter of GNG should not be a valid reason to keep the article? Diego (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Three reports from the same local paper do not pass WP:GNG by any stretch. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• @JaGa, Rob, Reaper: I find it hard to disagree with you all. This is a borderline case, in my opinion, and if I had to close it right now, based on the evidence and arguments presented here, it'd be a clear delete. This is not an article I would break a lance for. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Routine local and promotional coverage falls far short of establishing notability per WP:ROTM. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Local news is actually an issue. After doing a search, there was only coverage from Dallas Morning news or other Dallas local periodicals. No news, it seems, even outside of the city, so it doesn't seem to bypass WP:ROUTINE. Silverseren^C 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• :WP:Routine links to Wikipedia:Notability (events) which is about events only. WP:CORPDEPTH does include "routine restaurant reviews" though. If any reasonable number of people ever agreed on such things before they were added to there, I might actually take that seriously. It was added in on June of 2011. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29&diff=next&oldid=434886015] Not sure why it would fit in there with the rest of these things though. Totally different situation. I think WP:GNG fits here. Dream Focus 01:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::* The problem is that I can't find any significant news outside of Dallas. And we can't have an article on every single restaurant discussed in sources in every city, as has been pointed out by people before. Local newspapers generally do a weekly feature or something on a local restaurant. The main issue with having such an article based on these sources is that the sources generally don't say much, not enough to actually make a complete article with all the sections that made at least a C class article. For example, [http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/cityofate/2010/01/how_bout_them_knockers_sals_pi.php this source] listed in the article. If you read it, sure it's decently long, but it says absolutely nothing about Sal's in specific. The only thing usable from that source is the scores they gave, the text is just rambling garbage that doesn't have a point to it. Silverseren^C 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:::* I am not proposing to add every single restaurant that receives coverage. This specific restaurant is notable because it won category awards from two independent sources. Again, the links provided are not weekly features, but include annual roundup awards for the entire city. Out of every Italian restaurant in Dallas, there was a year that it was decided Sal's should be the one worth noting for being the best cheap eats, the best NY-style pie, etc. I find myself repeating once again that these mentions are NOT weekly featurings. The Dallas Observer's Best Of and D Magazine's Best and Worst are credible mentions. The Knockers article was not added by me; it is a supporting article only and provides some local color. The notability is supported by the separate accolades from Dallas Observer and D Magazine. Sal's is notable because Dallas restaurants are a notable topic, and Sal's is a notable Dallas restaurant. I don't see how Wikipedia becomes more valuable by deleting articles about actual cuisine and retaining articles about S'barro or whatever. Pawsplay (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::::* We agree on one thing: The D Magazine bit is definitely a "mention." If it were significant coverage, and if D Magazine were a non-local source, then we'd have something. Unfortunately for Sal's Pizza, neither of these things are true. Sal's being a member of a notable group (Dallas restaurants) does not necessarily mean that Sal's is in and of itself notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::::* Wikipedia currently claims that a Metropolitan_area is a region. Examine also North_Texas which lists the Dallas/Fort Worth Area Tourism Council under external links. You are misusing the term "local" here as if D/FW were a single city. Do you understand you are talking about an area that covers 19 counties, around 6 million people, over 14,000 sq miles, and over 100 miles in distance? It is the size of Vermont, with ten times the population. Pawsplay (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note - As of the time of this post, the article has been expanded and an additional source has been added to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• That is the most ridiculous bit of coatracking I have ever seen. A person from your workforce gets murdered, that does nothing to increase the wiki notability of it - he wasn't at work when it happened - the murder has no relation to the pizza place at all - I removed it, if the articles kept or not that content has no place in this article - sheesh - Youreallycan 12:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• (to clarify) I didn't add the information, I only denoted it here for this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::How do we know that the murder was not related to the production of allegedly very good pizza in the Dallas metropolitan area, which probably really has crappy pizza because Texans don't really know pizza and probably also eat cinnamon raisin bagels. Joking aside, I think where we come out here is that the regional coverage of Sal's, though not insignificant, is below the general GNG standard. One or two articles about the shop from a non-Dallas large paper, e.g., say the NY or LA times writing about what to do on a weekend in Dallas, might be sufficient, but that's not what we have here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::What complicates finding any other sources, if they exist, is that Sal's Pizza is a general pizza shop name for unaffiliated restaurants. So there's a bunch of them in other cities that have nothing to do with each other. Silverseren^C 17:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::The murder information is a classic example of passing mention, why it ever made its way into the article is beyond me. That was poor attempt to derail the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::*I added it because the local coverage of the murders mentioned his longterm employment at Sal's. The objection that he wasn't at work when it happened is absurd. The people writing the articles for the news were the ones who decided to mention the relationship. The reason it was mentioned should be pretty obvious; Sal's is a recognized and notable establishment, and David Jackson was cherished neighborhood figure. Notability does not apply to the contents of an article, only to the article itself. It seems pretty obvious to me that this section was axed simply because someone wants to see the article deleted, not because the paragraph itself was a problem. AFAIK it's still an unsolved murder case involving a well-known employee, and hence is still worthy of inclusion in the article. Please refrain from allowing contention over the article's notability to spill over into vandalism of the article itself. Pawsplay (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:::**And there it is a resume of why the en wikipedia ia a f**ked up place with f***ed up content that is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless and total example of why quality contributors flee in droves. Youreallycan 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)striking my gripe as its not really specific to this deletion discussion. Youreallycan 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

::::* Let me see if I understand this correctly. So, winning some awards just for being awesome pizza is not notable enough. But being mentioned in an unsolved murder case is "worthless." Meanwhile, D Magazine is a "local" publication, even though its readership is the combined size of the entire population of several incorporated cities in Vermont. I want to assume good faith, but what I'm really sensing here is some anti-Texas snobbery. can we talk about, maybe? Pawsplay (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• 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.

::As for the comments dismissing sources for being reviews, I'll point out to the main criterion in the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay. I think this article does have potential to be a beautiful snowflake (and thus above a cookie-cutter template), but will reserve my !vote as I'm undecided about the sources. Diego (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I think it could easily become an article of this shape. Pawsplay (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::Then the ITSLOCAl section needs to be reworded, as there is significant past precedent that only local news stories without a single national or even other region source doesn't meet the cut. For example, see these past AfDs: here, here, here. There's many more besides those with similar results. Silverseren^C 23:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:::How much of that "precedent" can be counted as community-wide consensus? This and this policy discussions make it clear that the general notability guideline is not bound by the requirement of non-local sources found at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). That's why WP:ITSLOCAL is an invalid argument for deletion (and the section shouldn't be rewritten), and why the above !votes don't hold weight. Previous AfDs can be used to inform consensus-building discussions at the policy talk pages, but their particular weight is small since the local (no pun intended) consensus they can met is mediated by the quality of their particular sources. Fact is that the argument against local sources has never reached wide consensus, or it would have be encoded in the primary guidelines and policies by now. As it stands, it's only used at the complementary guidelines that are used as alternate ways to inform notability but don't supersede the GNG. Diego (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• If it meets the WP:GNG that's all that matters. You can't have secondary guidelines overriding the primary one. An article must meet the primary or secondary, it doesn't have to meet both, as past consensus has clearly been established. Dream Focus 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::That being said, I'd hope that all editors would devote more time to talk about the quality and significance of the sources, and less about their physical location. ;-) Diego (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• The routine restaurant reviews in the Notability for organization and companies article has been removed by me after discussing it on the talk page with other editors. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#I.27m_curious_why_routine_restaurant_reviews_is_included_there_with_the_rest.] Dream Focus 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Please note: Dream Focus' modification to that notability guideline was swiftly reversed, so "routine restaurant reviews" still appears in the guideline, and I'm alarmed that this is what passes for "discussing it on the talk page with other editors." One person from this AfD agreed with you, one person not from this AfD disagreed, and that was it? Yikes. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• I discussed it, two others agreed with me, no one objected, so over 24 hours after I started the discussion and no objections about, I removed it. Didn't think anyone would mind. Then two additional people showed up to participate, disagreeing with me, and put it back in. Dream Focus 14:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found a nice mention on gayot.com. Unfortunately, that site is currently blacklisted. I submitted a request to have it de-listed. Pawsplay (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

: The site has apparently had a history of being spammed in the past. Submitting a whitelisting for www.gayot.com/restaurants/sals-dallas-tx-75219_15df00108.html Pawsplay (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The first half of the article is a violation of WP:SPAM the second is coverage of a non-notable, but tragic, crime that happened to be against an employee of the restaurant. J04n(talk page) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

:* I am not affiliated with Sal's, nor does the article use any laudatory language. What exactly are you identifying as spam? Pawsplay (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that winning an award from a news source for being the best, makes the coverage more than just routine coverage. Dallas Observer gave them their best of award in 1993, and D Magazine listed them in the "Best Neighborhood Restaurants 2008". As has been pointed out, there 6,371,773 people in the Dallas metropolitan area. Dream Focus 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• The most accurate way of interpreting the D Magazine listing, and this is disregarding that it's local coverage either way, is that Sal's Pizza is one of the 6 best restaurants in the Dallas neighborhood of Oak Lawn, [http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Oak-Lawn-Dallas-TX.html population 48,418]. This is not a noteworthy distinction, even if D Magazine were a non-local publication. The Dallas Observer's "Best Cheap Italian Food of 2003" award appears to be the better argument for notability, setting aside, again, the problem of local-only coverage. The notion that a local newspaper's conferring of a "Best Cheap Italian Food of 2003" award on a pizzeria makes that pizzeria a notable topic for encyclopedia is ludicrous. That we're even discussing this single, local award as an argument in favor of notability should tell anyone all they need to know about whether this topic is actually notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.