Talk:AutoNation/Archives/2015

Need cite

Is the claim about AutoNation being the largest automotive retailer really true? Consumer Reports had something different to say in 2003 with the following statement:

"The used-car superstore is a novel selling method that started with a bang and now has only one major survivor. AutoNation has closed all of its used-car superstores, but continues to sell used cars through some of its new car dealerships. Meanwhile, CarMax sold over 190,000 used vehicles through 41 superstores in 19 markets last year, and profits have improved over the previous year. Their philosophy is to make the car buying experience as hassle-free as possible. It seems to be working, but perhaps because the competition from AutoNation is just about gone."

Perhaps a citation is needed after the aforementioned statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.179.186 (talk • contribs). 19:23, 12 May 2006

I have added a cite to The Wall Street Journal which verifies the statement in the article. Note that the Consumer Reports quote you provided above applies only to used cars. AutoNation is now the number one seller of all cars, new and used, in the U.S. -- Satori Son 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of controversies

Regarding the [controversy] articles, I need a wise hand (someone who doesn't edit/care for this page on a regular basis, as there seems to be opposite bias there as well). Hopefully someone can jump in and write good/short accurate summaries that allow even the most basic of reader to decide for themselves. I have tried my best, but it seems as though it's still upsetting some of the people that care for this page. My guess is that they are closely related to Autonation either through friends, family, or direct employment. I have seen this across many company pages that simply cite revenue and management. My concern is that many users will use Wikipedia to research a potential employer, research a company they are interested in investing in, or even making a purchase as a consumer. By censoring valid/credible news sources cited in this entry, you create an environment of bias which undermines the very core of Wikipedia. Furthering that point, you are performing an injustice to every person who visits this article. If a gay person, or a woman who is planning on having a child in a year or two is researching Autonation to decide whether or not to accept a job, do you think the items in controversy would be important to him/her? If a socially responsible investment group is researching Autonation to buy stock, should information regarding their positions on human rights be censored? I contribute to Wikipedia through my own worldview, but maintain a strict policy of "Just the facts". As fellow editors, I hope all of you do the same - this is a valuable public service - please treat it like one. Pgurlygirl 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (moved from main article to Talk by Jkatzen 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

I have no relation to AutoNation, I know of no one personally who has worked for the company, and I have never, honestly, even driven by an AutoNation dealership that I can recall. Nonetheless, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a soapbox. There are far more appropriate sites out there to air frustrations or write reviews of companies. The Wikipedia article should reflect the information that a typical person will want to know about the subject. A limited amount of information regarding substantiated allegations and/or litigious activity against the company is warranted, but it by no means should dominate the article. Far more people visiting the article will want to know about its general history, corporate arrangement, number of stores, sales, etc. than about its potential history as a harbor of discriminatory behavior. It would be like taking an ordinary article about the Tooth Fairy and spending 50% of the space discussing why some people allege that encouraging children to accept the fantasy is unhealthy, fraudulent behavior that could set them up for a big let down later. A brief mention is warranted, but it shouldn't predominate. Jkatzen 08:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In many cases, relevancy is determined by frequency. Right now the only history other then fluffy factoids from the annual report is the fact that a building was damaed in a storm. To that point, if you really want to make it "non-dominating" you should actually seek to add more content that is of use to a person that would want to learn about Autonation. On the subject of predomination, this is a dynamic space, if the tooth fairy article was just created and had little or no content, ANY entry would be the dominating one. At that time, I was researching case law for Autonation - specifically related to discrimination, as such I had a large number of articles (actually about 45, I only posted the ones that made major headline news). I really believe that the current Autonation page, probably doesn't even warrant a page on the wik, as they have done nothing notable. Pgurlygirl 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You are artificially trying to make something infrequent appear relevant. Most all news cycles regarding AutoNation involve general issues of business. Very (very) few involve your controversies. They deserve a passing mention. The fact that you have been paid by the activist group to add these entries further reveals your motives to be questionable and likely puts you outside the rules of Wikipedia. Jkatzen 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Second subject, did you remove the edit of the information regarding stores and franchises? Since when is that differentation "Way to much information" for an Encyclodia. First, the information cited is inacccurate per the companie's own annual report, it's not currently set in relationship to a date. I also framed the information in context to a date, because they have shrunk considerably since 2005, so the number of 272 is no longer accurate. However since you have reverted the changes, it gives the reader the impression that this is current information. Additionally, the information not differentiate between a store a and a franchise which is a very relevant piece of information in the world of automotive dealerships. FWIW A store for example is a physical location that sells cars. A franchise is a store that sells a type of car. For example, Tooth Fairy Dodge would be a store, but then Tooty Fairy Land Rover would be a franchise, and not considered an additional store. Pgurlygirl 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the question regarding stores and franchises because (1) there were grammatical errors in the sentence, and (2) you were not clear as to what the difference was between a store and a franchise. If you make it clear in the article what you're talking about, I won't necessarily remove it. Jkatzen 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My challenge to you, go out and find 5-10 relevant things that are worthy of mention and include them if you feel the article feels "weighted". Don't just blindly delete postings/comments. I believe that being sued by the federal government for discrimination is pretty imporant. It affects employees, customers, and shareholders. Wouldn't you agree? Pgurlygirl 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I will neither accept your challenge nor grant that I have blindly deleted anything. Everything I've edited has been carefully and intentionally done. Jkatzen 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Huizenga's Role at Blockbuster, Inc.

Wayne did not found Blockbuster Entertainment, as the original entry indicates. Blockbuster was founded by David P. Cook of Dallas, Texas. Wayne bought the company around 1987 when the chain had around 25 stores. Wayne was responsible for developing the chain until around 1995 when it was sold to Viacom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.232.88.170 (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)