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. This looks on the face of it to be a no consensus case, but two of the delete !votes are from single purpose accounts, and another is plainly incorrect with regard to the sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

GNG is non existant for an encyclopedia. This is not a consumer website listing every business (and associated complaints)   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - [1][2][3][4](OK, that one may be a bit more dubious, but she is a payed journalist, this is just her personal site)[5] - multiple WP:RS, and that's not even including the smaller-circulation things, like Toronto Star... passes WP:GNG, contrary to nominator's assertions (for all the wrong reasons, admittedly, in terms of company practices) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nomination has no merit, it's an "I don't like it" style of nomination. This clearly meets both GNG and 42, and shouldn't be deleted just because it's a smaller company. Some of the smallest companies have had big controversies that have been covered, and that makes them notable. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it's been established in 2 AfD discussions already that this company is notable. I'm not sure what the nominator expected to change this time, but I'd like everyone to take those into account. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has nothing to do with whether or not I like this (well, I don't like flowers, they stink). Do we have articles on car dealers that rip off granny then the local "eyewitness news" does a story on them? Of course not. yeah yeah, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  17:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other stuff such as two previous "keep" consensuses (spelling/is a real word?), and nothing having changed since then? This got more than the local "eyewitness news", it's been covered in Canada and apparently Australia in some larger news organizations. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CCC, but I'm not opposed to withdrawing this nomination, and would do so if I knew how.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer  18:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically, since there's been one other delete vote (even though it's majorly COI), it shouldn't be withdrawn. Just strike your nom and say "I'd withdraw this now, reasonreasonreason" and someone uninvolved should take care of it. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - company is private, small and has no significance. Artcile became the ego battle of engaged editors and digrunted customers blocking any reasonable efforts from other editors to express different point of view.Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see that Bloomex has any notable to be inclided in Wikipedia as per GNGDimitri Lokhonia (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved to near his original comment, and Dimitri, you need to tell us why the sources we provide don't meet GNG or your !vote will be discounted. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note this editor has a self admitted, multiple times, WP:COI, and has not listened to the people in the other two deletion discussions and the people discussing with him now about why he can't just erase parts of his article. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -I am an owner of Bloomex. I tried to delete article 3 years ago but it was blocked by CliffC arguing that company was so bad that Wikipedia "deserves" to keep the information about my company. I stepped after 3 years to fix information about the company, I have created,which employs 200+ happy employees and have served one millionth customer last December. My attempts and attempts of other editors got blocked by 2 editors ( or may be that is teh same person) CliffC and glickwire. I will appreciate if you disregard opinion of these 2 editors on the subject. I will greatly appreciate if other independent editors can look into the subject, With much respect to Wikipedia Guys, Sincerely Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate vote, and it was big "I don't like it" and COI gwickwire^talk_editing 19:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources don't "address the subject directly in detail" as required by WP:GNG. Peter James (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me which ones "don't 'address the subject directly'" or "in detail". 1 Sure it's not the whole article, but it's a pretty good length section. No news article today covers only one specific thing. 2 Yes Ellen Roseman isn't working for a journalism company at this time, but she is working freelance for some, and for multiple government organizations of Canada which she claims to represent. 3 Nothing here, obviously reliable and in-depth. 4 Not a newspaper, but sources the BBB rating obviously reliably. Google Bloomex controversy and you'll find more. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're news reports and columns that don't provide enough detail for an article about the company. For example there's nothing about the history or operation of the company, and coverage of its products is only incidental. Peter James (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where, but where, does it say the history or operation of a company has to be covered in-depth for it to pass WP:GNG? Absolutely nowhere (it may be required for WP:ORG, but in this case, that would be irrelevant anyway.) Besides, Peter James, your argument for deletion is actually a reason to move this to "Bloomex controversy" or something along those lines, not even close to a deletion reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is without question. I also see a date in the future when the owner would come back and try to make a new article with less negativity or have someone do it for him hoping he's off your radar.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 00:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article has clearly become a venue for both credible and discreditable contributions with constant revisions and "undo revisions" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloomex&action=history - the reality of the situation is Wiki is not supposed to be a platform to sabitogue the credibility of a company or conversely an opportunity for a company to advertise or promote - it is supposed to be a go-to source for the unbiased, relevant and accurate representation of a person, place or thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markamp (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC) — Markamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Struck vote as duplicate through sockpuppet, will let others/closing admin decide on the actual Dimitri vote. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge on notable topics, and anything that is in reliable sources and verifiable about said topics. This meets GNG, therefore we must have an article on it. We must include what's in reliable sources in said article, and we've done that. Just because the owner doesn't like it doesn't mean we delete an article. Nor does constant revisions. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides, some of the "biased" stuff has been entered by this WP:SPA anyway, from what I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• clearly the definition of "reliable source" is subjective at best - my point is that this article has become a platform for "unreliable" and "unscrupulous" editing - why can anyone challenge (delete) the integrity or reliability of a source simply because the source is "the" source? Does that not make them "more" reliable - how is accurately identifying geographic locations backed up by a company press release "unsubstantiated"? Why is it not good enough to provide a link to the company's "Gift Basket" page to confirm that they sell "gift Baskets" in addition to "Flowers". Why is it not good enough to say they have production facilities in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax - this is clearly a unique business model in the floral business - does that not meet the "repository of knowledge" criteria? IMO there is a clear and evident effort afoot to suppress anything that isn't negative associated with this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markamp (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is significant coverage of the controversy and this company in WP:RS. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning doesn't hold any water. There is no "conspiracy", stop alleging that there is, follow WP:AGF and stop trying to promote the company - WP:NOTADVERT. Where the production facilities are is fairly irrelevant to Wikipedia (unless they have had some coverage somewhere: they haven't). The fact they sell gift baskets possibly should be in there, but not in the promotional way you keep pushing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NNC - and an encyclopedic article requires more than just a criticism section. Peter James (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2013 (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.