The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Modelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Contested CSD" from Talk:El Modelo by 180.172.239.231 Smile Lee (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: Nomination reason is insufficient. Also, this restaurant has been covered in multiple magazines, newspapers, and websites; from within its home state and elsewhere. It is extremely important to the history of New Mexican cuisine, and its restaurant culture. Smile Lee (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: Found another recent accolade, from Travel + Leisure, and added it to the article. There are plenty of digitally available sources, local and national, that are incorporated into this article; since the subject of this article has been around for quite some time, I can imagine that a good majority of sources will be non-digital. Smile Lee (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Smile Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocterCox (talk • contribs) 12:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:A7, which certainly doesn't apply now, and under WP:G11 (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.
   Unician ∇  16:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 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 WP:CORPDEPTH. 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. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the USA Today references corroborate local and national attention, American Culinary Federation does so as well, as does Travel + Leisure. And, The Weekly Alibi is a pretty modern and significantly sized article, that does not simply repeat blurbs. And, the fact that they have been in continuous operation since 1929, should also be considered; meaning there are probably multiple non-digital references that are not in the article. An article that needs to be fixed or expanded, does not mean it calls for deletion. Thus why its a stub. Smile Lee (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A source can only corroborate other sources if they exist and are included in the article. If there are other, offline sources, they need to be included. Google's newspaper archives didn't turn up a single hit, which leaves me a little skeptical that much is going to turn up, but I admit that's hardly definitive. I don't think those archives include the Albuquerque Tribune, which is a pretty big gap. So yeah, there very well could be stuff out there, but I'm not sure why we should have non-notable article on the contingency that sources might eventually surface.

The Weekly Alibi is a review in a local paper, and does not, in my opinion, establish national significance. It's a review in a weekly which publish at least one restaurant review per issue, if not more. How many hundreds of restaurants have they reviewed over the years? That source should be used in the article, but it doesn't do an adequate job of establishing notability. The Google link to the American Culinary Federation is not fully viewable to me for some reason, but it does say that El Modelo is only mentioned on two pages, one of which appears to be passing, so I'm not sure what to make of that. I stand by my original opinion. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources you removed are indeed self-published sources, but this is not a bio of a living person, and as such they can be included to back these claims. They are also published by professional writers working in the relevant field that have previously been published by reliable third-party publications, Andrew Romano and Gil Garduño, they are relevant to establishing notability. Also, I never claimed that the Weekly Alibi added to notability. The American Culinary Federation is not fully available on Google, I also found a couple older articles from the Albuquerque Journal. Smile Lee (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPS, self published sources "are largely not acceptable as sources." That doesn't exclusivly apply to BLPs. Romano may be a professional writer, but his article was not published under any sort of editorial oversight. Garduño was interviewed for an article about his blog, that is not the same as having been published by 3rd party sources. I don't believe either source should be used, especially not to establish notability. WP:GNG emphasizes editorial oversight as part of reliability. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Though this shouldn't be discussed on the AfD page, I will post about it on the Talk page of the main article, this just shows that the article simply needs to be worked on. Smile Lee (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The restaurant does not meet the standards of WP:Notability as established in WP:CORPDEPTH because all the sources provided fall under WP:Routine or are WP:Primary. (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 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. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Alibi article is about the company itself, so are the Gil Garduño and Andrew Romano articles, and being listed as one of the Best Mexican Restaurants in the U.S. by Travel + Leisure is not routine. Smile Lee (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Copy and paste of my response from anita's:

You are missing the point regarding proper sourcing for restaurants- reviews, best of lists, directories, now open listings and all other WP:Routine coverage only provides that the place is WP:Verifiable. You need quality sources that are about the chain, not the poor quality listings that you have provided. You need articles that are about the chain, and when I say about the chain I mean articles that discuss its history in depth, it business model and other structures related to it. These other sources you keep adding aren't worth the paper they were printed on regarding notability. Remember that sources that are reliable do not automatically confer notability to a subject simply because said source is inherently reliable. You need quality, not quantity, and so far you have not provided the required quality sources. E.G. just because Roger Ebert reviewed some movie does not make that movie notable because Roger Ebert reviewed it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're entitled to your opinion, but being voted among the Best Mexican Restaurant by T + L is not routine, being mentioned by USAToday twice is not routine. And, that Alibi article is significant in length, and is no where near routine, as it is not a simple review, as it covers the topic in depth. You're right, Roger Ebert reviewing a movie does not make it notable, but on the opposite side of the coin, a review by that high caliber a reviewer is not routine; though his reviews are not usually as in depth as Gil's and Alibi's are in this case. Smile Lee (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Gil's and Alibi's are in depth reviews that detail the history, cultural importance, and foods of the restaurant. And as for the USAToday and Travel + Leisure listings/reviews, as per WP:TRIVCOV, "the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions". Smile Lee (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Unician and Smile Lee. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The coverage here is significant enough to pass WP:GNG. The reviews and write-ups in magazines and travel guides are beyond the scope of "passing mention" of "directory listing" and WP:GNG makes no discrimination of opinion pieces. --Oakshade (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - you are all missing the point, reviews fall under WP:Routine - 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 WP:Directory, they are a listing of businesses within a locality and thus they do not establish notability. Finally, WP:Notability 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. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Not all reviews are routine, in much the same way that not all reliable sources confer notability. The content of the works must be taken into account. Being voted "Best Mexican Restaurants in the U.S." by Travel + Leisure is not routine, nor is the length and breadth to which it was covered by Alibi, Gil Garduño, and Andrew Romano. Even if they are, as you claim, "full of word of mouth or primary sources that are being parroted" does not equate them to being trivial, as they are in-depth non-primary sources in and of themselves. Your free to remove any directory listings if you wish, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but none of the sources are purely in list format meaning the edits might be reverted, but that's an entirely different matter. I take exception to your final statement; but, yes, a pile of trash is still composed of lots of pieces of trash. Smile Lee (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto what Smile Lee said. Just adding that WP:Routine is a qualifier on the WP:EVENTS guideline page anyway. I fail to see how a restaurant is an event. Also, while many travel guides have directory listings, in many cases as with this, it's a reliable source that gives in-depth and significant coverage to many subjects, as some do to this topic. Just because there are directory aspects to some travel guides, that doesn't make the significant coverage they have magically disappear. --Oakshade (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.