Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVI Global Trust


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

AVI Global Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company doesn't seem to be notable. All the sources out there about it seem to just be basic company profiles, things about it changing it's name, or news about it's stock price. I'm not seeing the multiple in-depth reliable sources that it would need to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP though. Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Please see WP:LISTED. In the case of listed companies "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies". Also this a FTSE 250 Index company so it is one of the larger companies on the London Stock Exchange by market capitalisation. It is also one of the oldest companies on the London Stock Exchange. Dormskirk (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that exempts a company that's on an international exchange to be deleted if it lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources that are needed for it to pass WP:NCORP. If in-depth coverage it can be found though, great. I could really care less. Maybe next time wait to vote until you actually find the sources your claiming exist though, because the one you added about them buying back shares doesn't cut it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had only just started: I have added a few more: perhaps you will now do the right thing and remove the tag. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The other sources you added are much of the same. Notability isn't just about sources "existing." They have to be about none trivial topics or not contain trivial coverage, and all the sources you added are trivial in both respects. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines for companies and find sources that actually pass them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, I have clearly wasted a lot of time here trying to rescue an article. In my view this is an interesting company and I do not accept the material I have added is trivial - we will just have to differ. Dormskirk (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, two of the sources you posted are the exact same article just from different websites. I would consider trying to pass off the same article as two different ones a waste of time and not one that comes from a difference in opinions on what's appropriate. Things like that clearly come a from lack of knowledge about the guidelines or the intent to ignore them, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Either way though being familiar with the guidelines before posting them as I suggested would have kept you from wasting the time you spent doing it. Your the one that decided to ignore me and in no way is anything along the lines of "keep because I spent time on this" a valid argument. Even if you weren't trying to pass a single source off as two separate ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the article which was the same albeit from two different sources. I hope you are now OK with this. Dormskirk (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The sourcing here is acceptable even at this stage, the company clearly meets both GNG and NCORP. This is a FTSE 250 company which was established by an Act of the UK Parliament in the 19th Century, The company had a history section on their website linking to a 150pg book, I was able to validate some of it through a quick look through a library search under the respective company names listed there, which mades me think this is indeed a notable and interesting company. A tale of Diamonds, and War for whoever has time to properly source it is particularly relevant to the history of British Colonialism in South Africa. PainProf (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: There may have been some confusion in the nominator's original search for sources, because the company has changed its name four times since its founding in 1889. It was originally called the Transvaal Mortgage Loan and Finance Company, and then became the British Empire Land Mortgage and Loan Company in 1906, British Empire Securities and General Trust Limited in 1964 and British Empire Trust in 2015. It's only been operating as AVI Global Trust since May 2019, so that may account for the sources seeming trivial at first, and mostly concerned with the name change — it's only been a year since that name has been used. There's a wider range of sources that come up if you look for the older names. To the sources already present in the article, I added a review of the company from The Times, and a discussion of the company's holdings and finances in an 1896 book called South American Mines; Their Position, Results, & Developments. I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable company listed on the Stock Exchange, it's the old British Empire Trust a renowned company Devokewater @ 09:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources already in the article and those listed above. It's a component of the FTSE 250. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2020 (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.