Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firestone Diamonds

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. So Why 14:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firestone Diamonds[edit]

[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)

The references here are standard coverage you would expect from any small publicly listed company, at least in the UK at any rate. Beyond this I do not believe this small company is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no functional news sources that don't fail on independence. The poor sources swamp even the WP:ROUTINE coverage you would usually expect to see on an AIM-listed company. There were a few reliable book mentions, but only a couple of lines in each, as far as I could tell. No indication that WP:NCORP is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. 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. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports

This article^{Internet Archive} from the Royal Bank of Canada, which issues analyst reports about Firestone Diamonds, notes:
Firestone Diamonds (Sector Perform, £0.40 Price Target)

Firestone is bringing its 75% owned Liqhobong mine back into production (the balance being owned by the Government of Lesotho), with first production expected in Q4/16. Capex guidance is R2.1bn (US$185m), although funding this is likely to be helped by the weakness in the rand (the company uses R13.27/US$1). The company stated in October that it had ~US$4m of headroom excluding the US$15m standby facility; again, the weakness in the rand is likely to provide some financial respite, although we note the need for the project’s timing and capex not to slip further. In our view, Firestone has the largest development risk, given relatively challenging conditions in Lesotho in terms of weather and gaining work permits to get the required staff on site. There has been some easing of this, we believe.
In the background, the company has also entered into an agreement with Tango Mining to sell its assets in Botswana (primarily the BK11 mine) for US$8m in cash. Tango has not yet raised the funds and requested an extension to the agreed timetable and an agreement is expected to be finalized in early 2016. We would view a successful disposal as positive for Firestone.
Coatsworth, Daniel (2016-06-09). "Firestone's diamond revival". Shares. Archived from the original on 2018-07-29. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
The article notes:
It seems very unlikely that Firestone will remain a single asset business, given the wealth of talent on the board and management team. There is a lot riding on Liqhobong’s revival so don’t expect corporate expansion just yet. Brown would be foolish to run too fast with acquisitions before the mine is running smoothly. He says it will take six to seven months to ramp up production in 2017 to desired levels.
Firestone used to be a multi-asset business but took the decision to cut loose from projects that didn’t meet the grade. This disciplined approach should be applauded. Botswana-based BK11 – once its flagship project – is in the process of being sold to Tango Mining (TGV:TSXV) for $8 million. Licences for the company’s exploration prospects have been given up.
...
Stockbroker FinnCap wrote in February 2016 that Firestone could indeed be a target for another miner. ‘Liqhobong gives Firestone an excellent core business from which to acquire and build out a growth portfolio,’ says analyst Martin Potts. ‘On the other hand, it could be an excellent growth opportunity for one of the more established diamond producers. … Three strategic shareholders control more than 55% of Firestone’s equity and so will effectively decide what happens in the event of any M&A discussions.
This article^archive.is from The Wall Street Journal notes:
The newest mine to come into production— Firestone Diamonds PLC’s Liqhobong mine, located in the same Maluti mountains as Letseng—was completed end of last year. In February, Firestone held its first auction of diamonds from the mine, selling all 75,936 carats offered. A single 37-carat diamond was sold for over $1 million.
Liqhobong “has raised a lot of eyebrows and very well could result in a recurrence of interest in terms of diamond exploration in Lesotho,” said Patrick Morton, a metals and mining analyst at Macquarie Group.
This article^WebCite from businesslive.co.za notes:
In a report on September 27, RBC Capital Markets analyst Des Kilalea lifted the price target to 60p/share, based on a better outlook for diamond prices in 2018, the imminence of Liqhobong’s production and free cash flow generation. There could be further upside potential if large stones are discovered.
Kilalea says there are three reasons to be positive about Firestone. It has the potential for large stones, which would boost average recoveries; it could be an acquisition target; and it could be in a position to start paying dividends from its 2018 financial year.
...
In a note issued in July, Macquarie analyst Patrick Morton also upgraded Firestone’s shares to "outperform", with a 40p-60p valuation and a 12-month price target of 45p.
Morton says this is based on Liqhobong’s likely early project completion, its solid operational team, potential for diamond price upside and the fact that Firestone will be one of only three new diamond miners producing 1mcarats or more.

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/LON/FDI/price-target/^WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Details
3/8/2018	Canaccord Genuity	Reiterated Rating	Speculative Buy	GBX 20	Paywall link
10/23/2017	FinnCap	Reiterated Rating	Under Review		Paywall link
10/12/2017	Royal Bank of Canada	Downgrade	Sector Performer	GBX 46 ➝ GBX 19	Paywall link
10/10/2017	Macquarie	Reiterated Rating	Outperform	GBX 55	Paywall link
9/11/2017	Panmure Gordon	Lower Price Target	Buy	GBX 68 ➝ GBX 38	Paywall link
8/9/2017	Investec	Reiterated Rating	Buy	GBX 37	Paywall link
4/5/2017	Shore Capital	Reiterated Rating	not rated		Paywall link

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Firestone Diamonds to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The analyst reports from Canaccord Genuity, FinnCap, Royal Bank of Canada, Macquarie Bank, Panmure Gordon, Investec, and Shore Capital are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.
Cunard (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - So most of the sources provided by Cunard do not satisfy the intellectually independent requirement (particularly those listed in the latter paragraph). That said, the WSJ source appears excellent. I'm unsure about the Financial Mail - it could be excellent, it could be poor (Couldn't find it on the reliable sources archives). Thus I have functionally pseudo-compromised on that particular source. In any case, this is clearly enough to lift my !vote off being a delete, and I've suitably amended to WK while I consider it. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the analyst sources provided by Cunard above, meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic is notable as per WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 2 August 2018 (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.