Talk:Stephen Adams (businessman)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

From User talk:Brewcrewer‎: Stephen Adams (business) - WP:BIO Objection: I came a across this investor in some research I was doing on the early parts of the Leveraged Buyout boom in the early 1980s (see an EARLY version of an article I am working on -- User:Urbanrenewal/Sandbox PE History). He built up the #3 billboard company in the US over the last 25 years and owns a company Affinity Group, Inc. that seems to be a major player in the Recreational vehicle industry with two businesses that are already on Wikipedia (Good Sam Club and Camping World). He also had his share of failures bankrupting a radio company he owned. However in terms of scale, Affinity generated ~$562 million[1] of revenue this past year which combined with his other non-public businesses would put him close to ~$750 million of revenue last year which he owns entirely himself. He has bought and sold radio and television stations as well as banks and is a historical figure in the leveraged buyout space (minor but notable). He made a hostile takeover attempt in the 1980s of a public company which seems to have been covered in various news outlets. He is a major benefactor at Yale and Stanford. I have also added a number of references and other interesting facts that I found in reading through the company's older filings on Edgar including from a deposition he gave in 2000.

I find it hard to argue WP:BIO on the basis of notability and I would like to think it is a pretty even portrayal without emellishment or hyperbole. I have worked on a number of company histories and bios and would like to think I am forced to walk a fine line on notability but do my best to do so and take a lot of pride in my contributions.

I am not sure which version you looked at also. It might be worth it to take another look as I did add a few references. I might have some more content / references to add when I have some time over the next day or so. Feel free to comment and if you have no objections I would like to remove the tag (and would prefer if you do it).Urbanrenewal (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article again, but I don't think it meets the wp:bio standards. I don't see any reliable sources that cover him. There's some coverage about the companies that he was involved with, but that doesn't suffice. The coverage must be substantial and the coverage must be about him. Being mentioned in an article about his company, even being mentioned in a few articles, doesn't meet the "significant non-trivial coverage" requirement of wp:bio. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the guy's business were not buying and selling companies. What makes him notable is that he has assembled a little empire of companies. And everywhere I found him mentioned he is mentioned as "secretive" and "reclusive". I don't think you need to have a profile written about someone for them to be notable if their actions are notable and verifiable. If you look at RV trade publications he pops up all over.

[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. I don't know how valuable it is to stick a bunch of those links in the article but they are there. And there was a weird article which I did not think belonged in Wikipedia[11]. The more I think about this the less borderline I think it is but would like to get additional viewsUrbanrenewal (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Although you're assertions for the establishment of notability are rational and logical, they don't cause him to meet the wp:bio standard. Wikipedia's standards are very specific - significant coverage in reliable sources. If he was secretive and did enough of a good job avoiding the media to have not recieved significant coverage, then he isn't notable for Wikipedia purposes. The rv newspapers that you provide have the same problem as the links in the article - they aren't about him, they're about the company that he was involved with. Besides, I don't think the rv newspapers meet the WP:RS requirements. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion and looking at your historical contributions I understand where you are coming from. In this case I think you are missing the point. I would disagree that the coverage on the page already is trivial per the definition ("Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing") since the articles are about the company's he owns and mentions him prominently in them. The articles listed above are not reliable sources for purposes of inclusion on Wikipedia which is why they are not in the article but in conjunction with the sources that are available I would argue it makes a pretty good argument if the question is notability (I don't think the question with the article is that the sources listed are not reliable or that the article is not referenced). I would prefer you open it to more opinions before attempting to delete. These are not some small mom & pop companies. The owner of any large business (hundreds of millions of dollars of revenues in his combined portfolio of companies) of this sort with as much prominence as he seems to have in his niches and given that he was an early mover in the LBO trend in the early 1980s I think combines to make a good case. I don't write articles about subjects that are not notable and I feel pretty confident that this has a place. Is it a perfect article? probably not but the subject is notable and if I need to build consensus I am happy to do so.Urbanrenewal (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)