Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impax Asset Management 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Impax Asset Management Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

does not meet current standards of notability -- see WP:NCORP  DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Article seems to be reasonably well-written. The company seems to be notable in that it manages a number of large listed entities. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * neither of these factors have anything to do with notability in Wikipedia  DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (and I know decisions here seem to be made on the basis of the narrow criteria in WP:NCORP) but in "real world importance" the company has been described by the Financial Times journalist and author, Alice Ross, as one of just three fund managers identified that has "consistently focussed on the environment". Dormskirk (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not a criteria either.   scope_creep Talk  10:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Well, even if "real world importance" is of no importance (but see WP:IAR), it does have coverage in the Financial Times, Investors Chronicle, Financial News and Investment Week, amongst others. Dormskirk (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep updates by Dormskirk seem to indicate that the subject of the article meets WP:ORGCRIT 'is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' Jeepday (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - asset managers and funds are not inherently notable. It would have to have Hundreds of Billions in assets to be notable. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * comment ::I notice that on SarahSV's talk page, makes the argument "My direction of travel remains that the efforts of companies that do really good things for the environment should be recognised."  My own view  is that this is the very opposite of WP:NPOV, destructive of the purpose of an encyclopedia, turning it into a publication like Charity Navigator.   Advocacy can be an excellent thing—elsewhere.     DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * comment ::I do understand and respect the point that DGG is making here - it is a very good one. I also strongly suspect that this article started life as one which was initiated by an editor with a conflict of interest. That said, I still think it would probably be a mistake to delete the article. Dormskirk (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as noted above, the company is not any more inherently notable than any other asset management company. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability as they rely on company announcement and interviews, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Among the oldest of these is Impax Environmental Markets, an investment trust that has been going since 2002. It was set up and is managed by Impax Asset Management, a firm founded in 1998 with backing from the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank. ... Yet while Impax Asset Management is wedded to some lofty principles, it is also very serious about the business of making money. It has begun to cast its net far beyond the conventional remits of renewable energy and recycled waste into areas such as sustainable food and fashion and the use of technology to reduce waste and the use of raw materials across industrial sectors. With sustainability at its core, this is pretty pioneering stuff."  The article notes: "It is abundantly clear that Impax’s sustainable investing mandates are both in demand and delivering for clients, writes Alex Newman. The past year has been marked by “unprecedented concern globally about environmental issues and rapidly expanding opportunities”, in the words of Impax Asset Management’s chairman Keith Falconer. It is hard to contest that view. Equally, it is hard to think of a UK-listed financial services group better placed to capitalise on this momentous, even exponential, shift."  The article notes: "Investors might worry about Impax's relatively small size and lack of diversity, but Mr Simm points out larger institutions have also taken a stake. BNP Paribas Investment Partners holds 28 per cent of the company, Rathbones has 7 per cent through its in-house portfolios, and Diam Asset Management holds 5 per cent. ... Investors must judge Impax's investment case on the basis of current valuations, and whether they believe the environment is one of the key themes of the future." <li> The article notes: "Established in October 1998 by chief executive Ian Simmchief executive Ian Simm, the company only invests in environmentally focused equities such as renewable energy, water and waste management. ... In spite of turbulent economic conditions, Impax's largest fund, the GBP204.1m Impax Environmental Markets, a Dublin-domiciled global equities product launched in February 2002, has managed to outperform its sector, Offshore Equity Ethical, by 1.79 percentage points in the year to September 15."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Impax Asset Management Group to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * That Impax Asset Management Group has been profiled in the Financial Times and The Times strongly establishes it is notable. That the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the company (it is good journalistic practice for reporters to speak to the subjects of their articles) does not make the articles non-independent as there is independent analysis and reporting from the journalists. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , what is your view about the sources cited above?  Sandstein   08:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more round

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, are you willing to rewrite the article?  DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the version of the article when you nominated it for deletion. has done an excellent job rewriting and substantially expanding the article since it was nominated. The article is neutrally written and balanced. It includes critical commentary about Impax: "The company was criticised again, this time by the Investment Association, over executive pay in December 2018." And "After 23.7% of shareholders voted against the re-appointment of EY as the company's auditor in May 2018,[9] the company was criticised by the Investment Association, over an apparent lack of independence of EY as its auditor, in December 2018." It would be inadvisable for me to rewrite an article that another neutral established editor has already done a great job rewriting. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I will defer to Cunard on this in the first instance but I would be content to work some of this material into the article if Cunard does not have time - particularly the material from Miles Costello of The Times which refers to "pretty pioneering stuff" and the material from Alex Newman of the Financial Times which refers to the company's ability to capitalise on "this momentous, even exponential, shift". Some of the language may need to be toned down a bit. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Dormskirk. Thank you for pointing out the sources' commentary about Impax which strongly establishes notability per Notability (organizations and companies) noting that, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". Thank you for your great work on the article. Please continue your excellent work on improving the article. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - Very many thanks for your kind comments, which have restored some of my faith in wikipedia. This is not the first time that I have come here to try and improve an article which I thought was worthy of improvement but whenever I have done so in the past my efforts, which were always in good faith, have been either condemned or otherwise criticised. You are a credit to the project. Thank you and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am very disappointed to hear that some editors fail to value your excellent work. They should encourage you to keep doing the great work you've been doing instead of condemning or criticising your work. I have encountered this frequently in my past work at AfD too, so I really relate to your experience. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of the improvements made, though I think it can be tightened a little, and I may do it. I can't withdraw the AfD as someone else has !voted delete, but I think it can be closed.  DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Dormskirk (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for withdrawing the AfD. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, while the article has been expanded recently, a lot of it is {particularly the History section) is opinioned trivia or puffery; what this journalist thought, what that person noted, what that employee did outside of the organisation etc, and not a lot of stating what it does and how it is notable. Asset managers can have a large net work due to the value of the assets under management, but aside from periodically buying and selling assets, they don't do much, hence are rarely notable enough for an article. Busztrax (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.