Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGI Homes


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

LGI Homes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

spammy article about non notable firm Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would point out that the article was not subjected to the speedy deletion request placed upon it, and was found to not be unambiguously promotional by User:Ged_UK. I would be interested in hearing which parts of the article are considered "spammy", and feel if they are found to exist, they could presumably be omitted or edited to guideline. As for notability requirements, the company is the 57th largest homebuilder in the United States (by raw sales numbers), and was also named the fastest-growing company by the largest of home construction sector publications (Builder Magazine) in 2009-- which suggests to me that the company is notable, as it was duly noted by these two third-party organizations. I would also point out that less notable homebuilders who aren't among the country's largest (such as Classic Homes) currently have their articles standing, with only prompts for revision, which seems inequitable. BizGooRoo (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Article is unambiguous advertising from start to finish.  Appearances on lists of "fastest growing companies" and the like are close to the canonical sort of trivial coverage or list inclusion that does not confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Start to finish? Come now, I think we may be exaggerating the matter. Clearly we have a dual challenge as to 1) notability and 2) promotion. To the former, I say: however much one may loathe lists like the NAHB's Builder 100 (which is flat-out about sales numbers, and pegs LGI Homes as one of the country's largest builders, by the impartial statistic of dollars) they do confer a matter of notability within the subject's own industry of home building. Which, I presume, is of interest to anyone researching home builders. Is this company Coca-Cola? Certainly not. But it is an influential one within its own right and within its own business. Again, I have to wonder why other articles for smaller and less well-known private builders stand, yet this one is taken so readily to task. As to the latter issue of promotion, I respect Smerdis' opinion that the article is promotional, although that opinion has already been directly contradicted by User:Ged_UK's earlier appraisal. Can anyone point to a particular sentence or thematic that is promotional? As I have said from the start, I would be happy to adjust any and all perceived violating content as per guidelines. BizGooRoo (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Promotional, from start to finish. The opening paragraph says: community development focused mostly in the southwestern region.  "Community development"???  I thought they were a building contractor.  Or is "community development" what they call platting out another subdivision?  This is the English language Wikipedia, not the patent nonsense Wikipedia.  At any rate: LGI Homes has been noted within its industry as a company that runs contrary to the trend... the LGI brand was considered a success story among homebuilders during the collapse of the United States real estate market in 2008... The company also employs a sales force that receives close to 100 days of training before they are able to interact with prospective buyers... one of the most highly-trained sales teams in the industry... The affordable and entry-level home market that is the focus of the LGI Homes brand... The company currently has an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau...  100% pure Grade F spam from start to finish, like I said.  The article is about as far from neutrality as it's possible to get.  I would have speedily deleted this.  And, since this nomination is going to get PR filibustered anyways, what, pray tell, is their claim to long term historical notability?  What, apart from being the "57th largest homebuilder" in 2009, removes them from being just another firm in their industry?  What is their significant effect on history, culture, or technology?  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The mini-lesson on semantics is most appreciated, but I would point out that virtually every line cited as promotional is not mashed together from marketing dust, but rather pulled from real third-party coverage of the company. Builder Magazine wrote the article on LGI's contrary business practices (in an article aptly entitled "Exception to the Rule"). Same article profiled them as one of the only builders that turned a profit in one of the first years of the downturn--that was an industry assessment, not mine. An article in Exchange Magazine discussed their inordinately long training practices--this was an assessment from a publication for entrepreneurs examining different business practices, not my own spin. LGI Homes builds homes that are categorized as affordable (which refers to their actual pricing, not perception), and are marketed to first-time homebuyers, which is just a basic fact. Anyone is welcome to look up their BBB rating; if they see something other than what is written in the article, feel free to correct. If the phrasing irks, then the phrasing can be changed. A writer can't make these facts or these published articles about the company any different than they are. I simply wrote what I found. And since it's been brought up, why are there articles on any homebuilders at all, public or private? Where is their extraordinary notability? Sure, KB Home or Lennar are large companies, but what do they really do, aside from build subdivisions?  --BizGooRoo (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Couldn't find significant coverage in independent sources. Dragquennom (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You mean like The Houston Business Journal, Bloomberg Businessweek, or the aforementioned articles in Exchange Magazine or Builder Magazine? I'm not sure what is meant by " sufficient significant" (which seems a very subjective word to me), but I don't think the linked coverage (both here and in the article) is trivial or incidental in nature. BizGooRoo (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think you should know what is meant by "sufficient"? Did I ever say "sufficient"? Dragquennom (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon. I meant "significant".BizGooRoo (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can't really see why this company is notable but since there IS significant coverage in some local newspaper, my previous "delete" argument is now refuted. Dragquennom (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Marginal keep. Not a ton of revenue, and nothing suggests it's notable for other reasons, but it does have some local significance, and the article is not overly promotional. Cool Hand Luke 14:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, the 57th largest? As User:Cool Hand Luke says above, there's nothing to suggest this company is notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment. (Removed bout of histrionics here. I've regained my sense of equilibrium, for now. Apologies.) BizGooRoo (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by . The article from the Houston Business Journal and the article from Bloomberg Businessweek each provide over 8 paragraphs of discussion about LGI Homes. I consider them to fulfill the "significant coverage" requirement at Notability. The promotional editing can be addressed through editing and pruning, not wholesale deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage. It will need to be rewritten though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed much of the puffery and marketing language from this article. I am neutral on the issue of deletion.  Note to article author: footnotes come after punctuation. Chick Bowen 00:18, 2 May 2011 (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.