Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardee 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Pardee Homes

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per Notability (organizations and companies). The article reads like Spam. created this article in Dec 2005, and has no other contribution on Wikipedia. Pardee Homes in Los Angeles was owned by Weyerhaeuser in Washington state. (https://www.weyerhaeuser.com/blog/design-trends-2014-part-2/) It was sold to another firm ca.2015 and changed its name. Pardee is a semi-common name of various businesses, and one is not related to another. I am not able to verify this particular Pardee Homes still exists. Google searches bring up Pardee listings, but no way to tell how old those listings are, or if they are even related to this one. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California,  and Nevada. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Mainly advertising sources for the company. I note, however, that there are 2 pretty detailed obits for George Pardee Jr. so someone might want to put forth an article for him. It would include the building business. Lamona (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Support deletion. This company does not meet the notability standard set out in NCORP. There is some excellent coverage of the company in this book. I am absolutely open to considering a change in !vote if someone can find multiple examples of sourcing as good as the two pages of coverage within this book. However most of everything else I found were trivial mentions of developments made by the company in real estate magazines. These do not constitute the in-depth significant coverage required for companies. There is good coverage of the company's founder, such as the LA Times article within the existing sourcing. This article only covers the founder in detail, rather than the company. The founder may well be notable, however his company does not inherit his notability. Turning to the quality of the article, I am usually against using "it's spammy" as an argument for deletion because an article can always be cleaned up. However not only can no editing overcome a lack of notability, I really do not see a substantial amount of text that is worth re-writing or salvageable. The entire article reads like a company profile or website. Even if notability is established, I would prefer to see the article draftified or even started all over again. As it stands, nowhere near fit for main. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2023 (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.