Deletion of Strutt Family Trust

Comment: I removed three sources from the article which were completely irrelevant, and the other sources remaining appear to be either mostly irrelevant or unreliable. If the supporters of this article want it kept, they need to find some independent |reliable sources that actually discuss the subject in detail
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per the http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Strutt+Family+Trust%22&btnG=Search&um=1&scoring=a lack of |reliable sources. This article fails  because the existence of Strutt Family Trust cannot be |verified by secondary sources. I agree with the sentiments expressed above that this is likely a hoax
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:V)

Comment: There are no |reliable sources that show |notability.  That said, I find it extremely unlikely that a trust fund would ever meet our notability guidelines.  I recognize that it's for a noble cause, but just that something is a noble cause does not mean that it belongs on Wikipedia - noble causes are not unto themselves notable.  So then, if that's the case, it is up to the editors to prove to me - and in fact, everyone here - exactly how this meets .  The above statements simply do not answer that question
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: This is actually quite weird.  If you look at the sources thrown up by a Google search, most are press releases or press release-type articles hosted on self-publishing sites and several of these almost look doctored to get the Trust's name in afterwards.  For example, http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4388237-strutt-family-trust-it6942002-invests-heavily-in-british-american-tobacco-plc-lse-bats-amex-bti-klse-bat-is-a-leading-global-tobacco-company-it-is-based-in-london-united-kingdom-and-is-a-constituent-of-the-ftse-100-index this one is supposedly about the Trust's investment in British American Tobacco, but the article is amateurish and the only mention of the Trust is in the title, where the words "Strutt Family Trust (IT694/2002) invests heavily in" have been tacked on to the beginning of the first sentence with no attempt even to adjust the grammar to make it read correctly.  I can't find a single primary or secondary source that provides any concrete, authoritative information at all about this organisation, so by definition it fails .  And the support above, which appears to boil down to "we want this article in order to provide a platform for charity fundraising", does not address doubts about notability or verifiability.  The Times online article cited by Bfigural is the nearest you get to a solid source.  Interesting that it's all about a hoax. Sockpuppet investigation probably a good idea
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The following accounts have been indefinitely blocked as |sock puppets of
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)