Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Dearborn Partners


 * 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.  A  Train talk 01:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Madison Dearborn Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete A private equity firm that has been involved in transactions with notable companies but does not appear to be notable itself. Notability is not inherited. There are no intellectually independent references with independent analysis and/or opinion and most references are based on company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 20:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

delete I see coverage of some of their deals, but no significant and independent coverage of the firm.Sandals1 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm cancelling my delete vote. I'm still not sure that it meets WP:GNG, but I'm not as sure as I was. FloridaArmy's argument seems to claim notability because of who they've worked with, but that seems like inheriting notability to me. Toohool's sources are better, but repeatedly sourcing Crain's Chicago Business only counts as one source and local coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep notable private equite firm. Substantial coverage of their major deals for major companies loke Univision, LA Fitness, Yenkee Candle and Bell. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep meets primary criteria for notability WP:ORGCRIT. — Formal Dude (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a failure of WP:BEFORE. Plenty of sources to meet GNG, such as:    . The company also has an entry in the International Directory of Company Histories, a very strong indicator of notability. Toohool (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, albeit needing improvement Chetsford (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment One !voter above says that the topic meets ORGCRIT but doesn't provide any reasoning. FloridaArmy states that their major deals got substantial coverage but I notice hasn't provided any references to show that the coverage was intellectually independent and not based on company announcements (which I believe is what will be found if anyone checks). Another produced 5 references and a passive-aggressive accusation with no merit. I've looked at the references. None (not one) is intellectually independent - a key requirement for meeting the criteria for establishing notability. From reading the references, my overall impression is that the chicagobusiness articles are akin to a business gossip column with no real contant and key information provided by anonymous sources or "sources close to the company". Useless for the purposes of using the references to establish notability.Here's my analysis of the references:
 * this chicagobusiness.com article provides information on the company but does not provide any *independent* analysis or opinion. The opinions provided in this article are qualified as follows: "Most observers agree", anonymous, doesn't meet the criteria. T. Bondurant French, CEO of Adams Street Partners LLC provides a quote/opinion but is not independent as it is disclosed that this firm "has invested in Madison Dearborn". Andrew W. Code, a partner of Code Hennessy & Simmons LLC also provides an opinion/quotation but again, is not independent as it is another Chicago-based private equity firm with business ties to Madison Dearborn. Also, the date of this article is July 1st 2002 and it states "The Chicago-based buyout firm's reputation is on the line as it pursues big targets like Jefferson Smurfit Group plc and Burger King Corp." ... yet the firm had already closed that deal and had been reported weeks previously. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This chicagobusiness.com reference also fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations from the company and from material produced by the company. There's a quotation from Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, in which he says ... nothing of interest, certainly not an opinion or analysis ... "It's early to call it a buyer's market, but it's not too early to say that it's no longer a seller's market," said Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. "To be a buyer's market, you have to have sellers who really want to sell." Since most of the material has been provided by the company and the article contains no (worthwhile/relevant) independent analysis or opinion, this reference also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This chicagobusiness.com reference also appears to rely solely on a letter produced by the company, or uses quotations from "local rivals" or analysis/opinion from an anonymous "person familiar with the firm". Without independent analysis/opinion, this reference also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This chicagotribune.com reference is based on a company announcement and recounts past deals made by the company. There is no independent analysis or opinon in the article and therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This chicagobusiness.com reference also contains no independent analysis or opinion. Quotations and opinions are provided by Bondurant “Bon” French, who leads Adams Street Partners LLC, and is not independent since the firm is a private-equity investor in all of Madison Dearborn's funds. Other factoids are provided by "people close to the firm" or from letters to investors. Since there's no independent analysis or opinion, this also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Finally, even if one of those references from chicagobusiness.com were good, we need *two* references from *different* publications before the criteria for establishing notability would be deemed to have been met.  HighKing++ 19:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You use that "independent analysis or opinion" line a lot. Where exactly is that in WP:ORGIND? Toohool (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Response There has been a lot of discussion in relation to the interpretation of "independent of the source" which you can find in WP:NCORP. I don't like this phrase because most editors unfamiliar with AfD interpret this to mean that the topic company and the publishing source need to be unrelated. This isn't the correct interpretation. For example, lets say the NYT (a source that meets WP:RS in every way) publishes word-for-word a press release from a topic company. Some editors would point to this and say that since the article has been published by a reliable source, it therefore counts towards notability. That is an incorrect interpretation. But what if a reliable source like the NYT doesn't publish a press release verbatim but instead publishes a story *based* on a press release - so its not word for word. These articles often use phrases like "Company XXX announced", "According to the CXO", etc. In these circumstance, WP:ORGIND provides clarification and states that any material which is substantially based on a press release is not acceptable for establishing notabilty so again (note: once notability has been established and with the usual care taken with PRIMARY sources, the contents of the press release may be used in the article - it is just that the source - any PRIMARY source - cannot be used to establish notability). Even so, it can be difficult to determine if an article is "substantially based on a press release" or other PRIMARY source and the easiest way to determine is the sources are PRIMARY or not, especially when the article extensively relies on interviews/quotations and cold facts is to look for independent analysis and/or opinion. Independent, of course, means an opinion/analysis that is a 3rd party independent opinion (provided by the journalist or an unconnected analyst for example). Without an independent analysis or opinion, an article that appears to extensively/exclusively rely on quotations or materials provided/published by the company are still PRIMARY sources and fails WP:ORGIND since the material was either substantially based on a press releaseor any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly.  HighKing++ 12:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are taking some big leaps to interpret policy as what you want it to be. But confining the discussion to the subject article: It seems to me that you are claiming that all the cites linked above are primary sources, because they rely largely on primary sources linked to Madison Dearborn, and don't cite any named third-party experts. I think you are cherry-picking from WP:PSTS, which states that a secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Analysis or evaluation is not required. Synthesis is enough. All of the cites above synthesize sources, which may include, yes, press releases, but also include quotes from knowledgable parties (even if those parties are anonymous), and facts from previous reporting, and a fact-checking process that corroborates facts from multiple sources, some of which may not be explicitly cited in the article. That's enough to make them secondary sources. An article with extensive analysis/opinion will "count more" for GNG, but you cannot simply dismiss articles that don't have that. Toohool (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing sources that are acceptable for establishing notability and sources that are acceptable for verifying facts and data within an article. This isn't new - I pointed this out above. WP:GNG is the applicable policy and WP:NCORP (and in particular the sections on CORPDEPTH and ORGIND) are guidelines to assist in the interpretation of GNG in relation to organizations and companies. GNG also links to an essay on Identifying and using independent sources and makes the point Material available from sources that are self-published, primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the information that establishes the subject's real-world notability to independent, third-party sources. For the purposes of notability, an article that relies on quotations and statements attributed to company produced material is not regarded as having verified facts and is not regarded as "independent" since no opinion or analysis is provided. Similarly, synthesis is essentially PRIMARY material and is not acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability. These aren't my "big leaps" or interpretations - check our the Talk pages of many AfDs or even the Talk page at WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Synthesis is essentially primary material"? That makes zero sense. I just quoted the policy that includes synthesis as part of the definition of a secondary source. Toohool (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Searching on Google News I find coverage of the deal to sell Bolthouse to Campbell Soup, the largest deal in Campbells history, as well as another billion dollar banking deal this month and coverage of Madison is a potential buyer of PwC's government services contract business. This is a major company with lots of important business deals and ownership stakes. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ResponseNews coverage is 99.9% likely to be based on corporate announcements. You need to post the links. See WP:GHITS.  HighKing++ 12:08, 3 January 2018 (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.