Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Pagamentos

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 delete. Sandstein 18:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Pagamentos

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Probable spam created by now-blocked WP:UPE. Of the 12 sources cited, 1 is 404, 1 is a two-sentence market cap valuation, 1 is a consulting group report about credit processing generally, 2 failed WP:V, 3 are WP:MILL business transaction stories, and 4 are WP:SELFCITE. These are all either not independent of the company or not significantly about the company. WP:BEFORE discloses similar limited coverage. No logical target for redirect or merge. Fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears from their talk page that the editor is trying to figure out to to propely declare, so in my opinion, UPE should no tbe taken into account in evaluating this. The refs are not good, but if the company isatually worth US$1.5 billion, it might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only one reliable source, reuters (3 citations). Press releases from investors.stone.co are clearly not usuable. Data from Brasil's central bank is usable to verify some claims, but does nothing to establish that the subject is notable. lavca.org is an advocacy organization and blogs.oglobo.globo.com is well, a blog. I'm finding lots of mentions, mostly in Portugese, many related to their IPO, but I don't see that the requirements of WP:NCORP are met here. There simply isn't any significant coverage of the company; it's routine business news. Vexations (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am astonished why editors are talking about its notability without giving a second for evaluation to check the notability. If the references are not good, it doesn't mean it doesn't pass the notability. There are hundreds of reliable references on the web and the nonreliable references can be removed and reliable ones can be added. It is unfair to say that a company listed on Nasdaq which raised around $1.5 billion in funding and has more than 5000 employees doesn't pass the notability. Just have a look at the coverage by Reuters alone, if one is not sure about the coverage by reliable media. This is just a glimpse, there are so many other reliable media coverages as well. I am going to analyze all the links and update the content. Hope this will resolve the issue.Albelard (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albelard have you read WP:NCORP? It may addresses some of your concerns.Vexations (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Vexations. Company is on NASDAQ and has plenty references. Expertwikiguy (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Expertwikiguy:, have you seen WP:LISTED? There is no inherent notability to NASDAQ. As to the "plenty" of references, there is only one WP:RS among them, as stated above. Abelard has done excellent work removing the promotional content but even the improved version is now almost sole-sourced to Reuters and those references are to WP:MILL transactions. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:OK you are right and I was not aware of WP:LISTED, so I take that back. However, I searched Google news I found some new sources that are not press releases such as https://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/stone-pagamentos-raises-us115bn-from-ipo and https://exame.abril.com.br/negocios/stone-brilha-na-carteira-de-buffett-e-mira-parcerias-para-manter-o-ritmo/, so I stand by my vote to keep. I will see if I can add some of these sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC) I have added a couple of new sources now Expertwikiguy (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is clear and there is no ambiguity that all newly added references are reliable and pass the WP:NPOV. As long as WP:LISTED is concerned, it says; However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. This comes true for the company. Detailed coverage like this would rarely be found on companies.So, I'm again in favor of Keep. Albelard (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Albelard, which newly added sources? sources that have been introduced since revision 938191801 are:
- https://thevaluefirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/StoneCo-Thesis.pdf Alright,bear with me. Most of the particpants have never been to Weert, the Netherlands where The Value Firm is based, so you could be forgiven for not knowing that it's address, Markt 1, 6001 EJ Weert is the (former) location of a low-budget retail outlet. Perhaps Peter Coenen, the author of the report lives above the store, I know there was an apartment for rent a while ago. If this is a reliable source, then I'm the king of France.
- https://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/stone-pagamentos-raises-us115bn-from-ipo bnamericas.com is not a traditional news outlet (like a newspaper or a magazine), it is a "networking platform". It has no editorial policy that I can find. The article is oddly similar to the reuters one listed below though. Reuters: "Even before setting the price for its shares, Stone had already lured for the IPO big-pocketed investors, such as Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc and Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba’s payment affiliate Ant Financial." bnamericas wites: "The IPO attracted interest from Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway and Ant Financial, the payment arm of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, which both purchased shares in Stone." It doesn't offer anything that reuters doesn't. Including it is just reference-stuffing.
- https://www.leadersleague.com/en/news/interview-with-augusto-lins-president-stone-pagamentos regarding Leaders League: it is "a media and rating agency for top executives at the international level" that "connect[s] senior business leaders to a dynamic network of business information". It offers three products: Market Intelligence Reports & Top company rankings, Professional events for top executives and Career management & digital communication. That last one is for "companies aiming to actively shape their reputation". That's not what reliable sources offer.
I have no problem with reuters, except for the dead link.
Delete: Soooo many press releases, so little real journalism. Even the "not press releases" listed above are actually press releases, just not titled as such. A tip for those looking to determine whether something is a press release or not, one good indicator is a lack of a proper by-line. It's not a definite indication, but it's certainly indicative. The writing style is also indicative, and the city name at the beginning. Put a few of these things together and you have a 99.99% guaranteed press release. Also, quotes from the CEO (when it's a large company) are also a dead giveaway. Real journalists almost never get lucky enough to interview a CEO of a large company for a hard news story, they're usually lucky to just get someone high up in Public Relations. No, I'm afraid that there's just tons of WP:CHURNALISM and similar here. Waggie (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2020 (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.