Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgio Baldi

Giorgio Baldi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I believe this fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG Hardly any significant in-depth coverage. Editor seemed a bit lost on the intent of the article: Half the article focussed on the late owner rather than the restaurant. Most of the bit about the restaurant features some dishes and then the list of famous people who go there.

WP:INHERITORG: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.

Assessing sources:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Vogue		Discusses famous people. Fails WP:INHERITORG	✘ No
The AU Review	User submitted articles	Security alert when I revisited the site.	✘ No
People		Discusses famous people. Fails WP:INHERITORG	✘ No
LA Times		Review of ordering and prices	✘ No
NY Times		Discusses famous people. Fails WP:INHERITORG	✘ No
Hollywood Reporter		Reports owner has passed away.	✘ No
HuffPost contributors	content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight.	reports owner has passed away	✘ No
LA Times		no in-depth reporting	? Unknown
Grub street		Discusses famous people. Fails WP:INHERITORG	✘ No
LA Times		Obituaries	✘ No
Eater LA		reports owner passed away	✘ No
Vogue		Discusses famous people. Fails WP:INHERITORG	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Equine-man (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the most celebrity filled restaurant in LA discusses the people who go there does not mean the articles provide no in depth coverage. Did you even bother to do a google search? For an article to qualify for deletion, there can be no in depth coverage readily available, it does not need to be in the article. This obviously passes WP:GNG as it is one of the more notable restaurants in the world. Regardless there is certainly more than 2 in depth sources and the 30 page Vogue article doesn't just deal with the celebrities, it deals with the influence in the fashion world the restaurant has had over 50 years. Perhaps the sourcing could be updated but there is plenty available. This table dismisses every source that talks about a celebrity in a restaurant in Hollywood, regardless of the in depth coverage in the articles. Happy to compare the sources and notability to some of the articles the nominator has published though. ~2025-33886-10 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2] - These two LA Times articles are in depth reviews of the food and the one has significant history not even in the article. More than qualify the article significant and notable. ~2025-33886-10 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your connection to this restaurant? Equine-man (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I live within 5 miles of it.. thats all. i was going to try and build up the Pacific Palisades nav bar to help the area after the fires and this is one of the most significant restaurants in the area.. ~2025-33886-10 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you published this article, Altes Schloss (Scheiden), perhaps you are confused about notability and required references. I would suggest you search google books for "giorgio baldi" for additional references since you will find no less than 100 biographies that mention the restaurant in detail and many more sources. The LA Times alone mentions it in 57 articles when you search. You should also mention this article went through AFC already and was published by a reviewer. ~2025-33886-10 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out one more thing. You assessment table is incredibly flawed and it makes me wonder what your motivations for deleting this article that was published through AFC by a much more experienced editor? To say that this article from the NY Times doesnt qualify for notability is incredibly skewered or it just shows inexperience. The same can said for the LA Times articles on the page. I would love to hear other editors way in on why this NYT article isnt notable. It discusses the history of the restaurant and its food in depth in an article the size of a whole page. ~2025-33886-10 (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before you comment again on this page, I suggest you read WP:CIV. And perhaps WP:BLUDGEON as well. Equine-man (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I'm sorry you feel that way. I was only putting together that since for some reason you think that a large NYT article on an LA restaurant that has been open for 35 years and a 40 page vogue spread along with numerous significant articles outside normal food journalism doesn't just contribute to WP:ORGSIG but actually shows exactly how significant of an influence this particular restaurant has had on the eating community over such a substantial time period. The additional significant mentions and descriptions of the restaurant in numerous biographies proves a long and deep documented history by credible writers and journalists with strong editorial review. I had no means of ill will, just trying to explain Wikipedia's rules on notability since you don't seem to work on topics that receive significant press coverage and since your answers seem to suggest you didn't have a clear grasp on WP:ORGSIG. I do sometimes answer before coming to a complete thought which either requires me to edit or to leave several comments, possibly due to processing all of Wikipedia's numerous guidelines and procedures into a single thought. Your right, the article should provide much more depth into the food offerings and details on the numerous reviews but, it is also wikipedia's policy to encourage group contributions so, since im not affiliated with the restaurant, i don't need to perfect the article to such depth from the start.. I was just making a page so the Pacific Palisades nav bar had a link for it. It is one of the only restaurants to survive the fires. Keep up the good editing buddy! There is a lot to learn here! ~2025-33886-10 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]