Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomex (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]
AfDs for this article:
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]
  • 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]
  • 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. gwickwiretalkediting 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]
  • 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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bloomex_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137631868"