Talk:Adani Group

message: I may partly agree and partly disagree with fellow reviewers User:Hatchens and User:Curb Safe Charmer.  I don't think that establishing separate corporate notability for any Adani subsidiaries should be based on identifying the best three references.  The Rule of Three is meant to deal with reference-bombing to try to establish notability of run-of-the-mill corporations.  We already know that Adani is notable, and there already is an article.  The question is whether to split the article.  Wikipedia has been inconsistent about when to list multiple divisions of parent corporations or parent conglomerates.  The question that must be asked before we can even discuss any splitting is one that there has been a hand wave about in the past.  That is what the affiliation of the editors who are proposing splitting the article is with any of the Adani units.  Editors who have any conflict of interest should, in my opinion, simply be ignored with regard to splitting out multiple divisions.  That call should be made only by established neutral editors.  I say that we only need one article.  If other reviewers are of the opinion that we should have multiple articles, I will accept the judgment of a rough consensus of neutral editors.  
We agree that Adani is notable, and there is an article.  The decision as to whether there should be multiple articles can be made only by neutral editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I agree with you in totality. After checking the Draft:Adani Enterprises and the streamlining-cum-puffery reduction done at Adani Group by , I will also extend my support only if the majority of neutral editors take the call for the split in the first place. However (if there is a rough but positive consensus for the split), I would still recommend it to put the draft through the AfC review. - Hatchens (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to remove a lot of puffery and made this article stick to the subject it is talking about. I do not doubt the notability (of Adani Enterprises) if we look at it through WP:THREE rule (as requested by User:Curb Safe Charmer); 
1.News reference as per WP:RS - , 
2.The independent analyst reports as per WP:LISTED- , 
3.Significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV in a book - . 
Many such references are there that's why I am suggesting a split. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Restatement of the Issue 

message: I suggest to add the registration date and under registered act or law 202.179.92.246 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adani group is registered under the Companies Act, 2013. 

message: I have removed everything from the "Awards and recognition" section and some fluff content from "Philanthropy" section per WP:NOTADVERT. Non-notable and/or non-independent awards should not be included as per our content and quality standards. The Brand Trust Report award, All India Maritime and Logistics Awards, Economic Times awards, GTM Research award, Reader's Digest Trusted Brand Award, ACEF ASIAN LEADERSHIP AWARDS, CSR awards are not just poorly sourced, but are also non-notable awards. Content removed from "Philanthropy" section is just poorly sourced. — hako9 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing PR fluff 

message: An invitation to User:Saintstephen000 to explain what content I have whitewashed. 49.37.243.97 (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: hi thanks for taking the time to create an awesome encyclopedia.
on routine vandal patrol, we noticed an ip editor removing cited and relevant content from a contentious article.
upon double checking, we noticed a pattern that suggested a series of biased editing, a removal of cited controversial content.
we reverted, naturally, and the ip editor feigned ignorance and persisted with the deletion campaign.
we of course could be wrong, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
 Saintstephen000 (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

text: The edits were mainly removing excessive citations and over the top mentions of market cap milestones, which change on a daily basis due to change in stock prices. It's the opposite of whitewashing, if I may say so. Your unexplained reverts are disruptive. The least you can do is look at the edits before accusing other editors of whitewashing. You have been here long enough. 49.37.243.97 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

text: You have written a whole lot of nothing here without providing any proof of me whitewashing any content. More importantly, you have reverted my edits four times on false grounds, a violation of WP:3RR. Probably a good idea to revert your own edits at this point. 49.37.243.97 (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saintstephen000 

message: I think there ought to be a section explaining what it is.  The company website says that the -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a primary source and the number is outdated. After the acquisition of Ambuja Cement, ACC and NDTV in 2022, the number of publicly listed companies has increased to 10. Furthermore, there are privately-held companies like Adani Capital and Adani Realty which are not related to any of these 10 publicly-listed companies. Maduant (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: I think the bulk of the 2021-2022 fraud material (see also https://republicaninformer.com/huge-company-loses-100-billion-after-enron-type-scandal-unfolds/) should be moved to the history section, which currently does not even touch it.Kdammers (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  All the material in the "controversies" section should be moved to the history section.   See :WP:CSECTION.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-order 

message: Remove violating Wiki guidelines external links - see WP:ELNO 103.241.226.128 (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023 

message: Due to recent edit warring, this page has been protected for a week. Please use this time to discuss what is appropriate for the page. If you come to an agreement prior to the expiration of the protection, feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFPU, where for the avoidance of doubt any uninvolved admin is authorised to remove protection without reference to me. You can use the template  if there are urgent agreed edits needing to be made whilst the article is protected, but this is not for use in the event I have protected m:The Wrong Version of the page. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Help required in removing the following text from lede; 
"According to Business Today report In the financial year 2022-2023, the Adani Group reported income of Rs. 1,38,175 crore and EBIDTA of Rs. 10,025 crore. The net worth of its assets, including non-controlling interest, was Rs. 37,890 crore. From the ten listed companies of the Group are Adani Enterprises Limited, Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited, Adani Power Limited, Adani Green Energy Limited, Adani Energy Solutions Limited, Adani Wilmar Limited, Adani Total Gas Limited, Ambuja Cements Limited, ACC Limited and NDTV."
These earnings reports are deemed superfluous. If anyone wishes to incorporate them, they may request an infobox update backed by reliable Wikipedia sources. Charlie (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change; mainly because the writing is atrocious (lot of that in article). -- dsprc [talk] 05:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Please explain why it is "superfluous"? I note there is a reference to Business Today at the end of that sentence - is that considered reliable? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 13 September 2023 

message: A user correctly marked the section on cronyism and malfeasance as "excessive citations". However, this section has been a target for a number of newly minted and IP-based accounts attempting to remove it. Since it's 'contentious', or at least many IP-address editors have question its various claims, it seems like a good idea to keep a number of citations that make sure every claim is covered by reliable sources. DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Excessive citations" on cronyism, etc.