Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Group

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. Ekabhishek^talk 06:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turned up only routine coverage of the company's press releases. Msnicki (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep [1] It is one of largest groups in India headed by Kishore Biyani. It owns well-known brands like Big Bazaar. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link you've given is to a Google search, not to any specific source. Setting aside that WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid, it appears that all the coverage turned up by that search is merely routine coverage of the company's press releases. Can you point to any specific sources you believe clear the hurdle as reliable, independent and secondary and which address the subject in detail as required by our guidelines? Msnicki (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep [2] [3] [4] [5] Providing strong reliable source supporting the article's authenticity and notability. Future Group is a major retail player and FMCG manufacturer of India and is highly notable . The article has now been improved enough and citation added. Request to recheck and close this discussion and remove AFD template from the page.-- Sahil 12:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your first link is on the futuregroup.in website and is clearly WP:PRIMARY. Your second link appears to be routine coverage of the opening of a new location. Your fourth link is a trivial mention of Future Group as one of several retail chains invited to send an executive to meet with secretaries the ministries of consumer affairs and agriculture to talk about price inflation. Your third link might contribute to notability but even it is very, very weak, reporting that on a visit to Nagpur, the chairman of Future Group said they were planning to build some kiosks. I still don't find this to be sufficient to establish notability. Sorry. Msnicki (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Msnicki. Contrary to your opinions ,My first link is the official website of futuregroup where you can find stuffs like press releases, subsidiary company info, group websites , annual reports etc. for thorough verification of the article. My second link is of a list of coverages by a major newspaper published to signify positive approach of a company that could affect overall retail stock market conditions. My fourth link [actually fifth] is a mention of Future Group as one of the several leading chains invited by the current Indian Government to discuss on price rise with key government officials. Do note how the newspapers has mentioned only the familiar names in their heading and para to imply the leaders in retails :) . My third-last link reports the planned expansion of the company with a new business approached and published by a major business newspaper to notify market shareholders . In case you find it weak , we can look into other links like the 3rd one about an INR 175 Cr ($35 million approx) purchase or the 8th link about their plans for an INR 15000 cr revenue ($2.4 billion approx). I also have added more materials to the article with references to strengthen the material -- Sahil 13:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talk • contribs)

I think you may misunderstand how notability (which is all we consider at AfD) is determined. Per WP:GNG, we require WP:SECONDARY sources to establish notability. The company website is WP:PRIMARY and is unhelpful in establishing notability. Fundamentally, you cannot make yourself notable just by writing about yourself. It is also not enough that a subject seem notable. Others not connected to the subject must actually take note, they must do in reliable sources and they must offer their own secondary analysis. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, we exclude trivial coverage including "routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and] quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources", meaning your other links are also unhelpful. Per WP:BIGNUMBER, we do not base notability on arbitrary size, e.g., revenues. Finally, notability is not WP:INHERITED, meaning that just because the subject owns or controls some notable brands, does not make the subject notable. Again, the only thing that matters is whether there are multiple reliable independent secondary sources on the subject. Those sources do not appear to exist. Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh , I guess we are not getting into a conclusion here ; it's time we include more experts here to solve this up. I have put this up for discussion in the Admins Noticeboard and you can check it out here . Also , please let me clarify that i have not added company website links to verify is notability (cuz that would be wayyy stupid) , but to verify the existence of its operating companies , its published annual report (where you can see its net income/ profit and loss statement and assets) and press releases. For notability ,I have posted in enough links from , as i have said before , multiple major newspapers where they are (mostly) core reason for the article than merely a passing mention. Also, as much as i can see (not an admin), this article is not self published (they dont need to , considering their popularity), And me , i am just another gentleuser who came across to hand over justice to an innocent article :D ! Good Day --Sahil 05:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talk • contribs)

Keep per WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability - The subject have significant coverage (see here, see here, see here], see here see here) in the public domain but the article need some clean-up and cite styling. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 07:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the panda ₯’ 08:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a mess with poor referencing, but this is a major company which has significant coverage in books (including textbooks) where it is consistently described as India's largest retail group, e.g:

• Getting China and India Right: Strategies for Leveraging the World's Fastest Growing Economies for Global Advantage (John Wiley & Sons, 2009)

• Rural Marketing: Text And Cases (Pearson Education, 2011)

• Fundamentals Of Retailing (McGraw-Hill Education, 2009)

• Supply Chain Management for Retailing (McGraw-Hill Education, 2010)

Doesn't anyone ever think to use Google Books in these discussions (and for referencing articles) instead of random internet "hits"? Books by academic publishers are a far better indication of the lasting significance of a subject. Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS The following book by a major Indian academic publisher (Vikas) is very useful for referencing the company's history and subsidiaries:

• India Business Yearbook 2009, pp. 154–156

The following feature articles are useful re the major re-structuring of the company which began in 2012 after its financial crisis in 2009–2010 and has been widely covered in the Indian financial press. Note that these are not press-release based and are from notable publications:

• Masoom Gupte (23 June 2014). "Method in the madness", Business Standard.

• Samar Srivastava (18 June 2012). "The Big Future Group Sale". Forbes (India) (also appeared in the print edition of the magazine)

• Samar Srivastava (6 September 2010). "Kishore Biyani is Back From the Brink". Forbes (India) (also appeared in the print edition of the magazine)

Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major retail chain whose notability is clear. Andrew (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be KEEP without further ado as a SNOW KEEP. This nomination should not have been made. A quick Google search and Google News search shows this firm is, without a doubt, notable passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Cutest Penguin above. Carrite (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Easily passes WP:GNG, although it needs a massive clean up and has a somewhat trivial embedded list. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.