Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomex (2nd nomination)

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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomex

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

The original nomination by User:Dimitri Lokhonia^{Rankiri (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)}:[reply]

hello, my name is Dimitri Lokhonia and I am a president of Bloomex. The article has incorrect information on company structure, business, history and fulfillment. Our PR department wrote it originally in 2008 for advertisement purposes. Besides I do not think that company on such small size has to be on Wikipedia. Another interesting fact: CliffC is adding bad publicity the same day negative article appeared online. He maybe an editor , but not an independent one. In addition if you look into discussion history majority of editors were banned and the remaining palefist and CliffC some some sort of interest of publishing incorrect information on Bloomex.

I want to ask Wikipedia community to delete this article. Sincerely Dimitri Lokhonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Another short note: The editor who ruled to keep the article( Pastor Theo) was banned as well. I will appreciate the attention on this matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC) [1][reply]

Keep. Continuing coverage in reliable secondary sources (March 01, 2008, April 9, 2010) suggests notability. — Rankiri (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the company appears to be notable and covered by many secondary sources. However, if there is any information in the article which the nominator can prove to be false it should be deleted. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~^{(duplicate vote)} Ownership information is incorrect. Fulfillment model is not correctly described. Flower delivery business is only part of Bloomex business which includes bouquet distribution and wholesale distribution. Obviously as any internet company we have customer service issues, but to have Controversy section bigger than main article does not look right for me. Besides I do not agree to the fact that Controversy uses journalist blog as a source of information. Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable and sourced. mauler90 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet the notability guidelines, and has sources. I see no reason for deletion of this article, which seems to be more about removing controversies from the internet so that the company will not have bad publicity. Article could use a history section. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has received substantial, independent coverage in multiple major media outlets (including several Toronto Star columns, CBC online article and CBC Marketplace television documentary feature). Nominator admits to conflict of interest, and should therefore consult WP:COI. TheFeds 20:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks notable to me, nominator might consider reviewing WP:OWN as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets our notability guidelines. It's ironic that in the first AfD both the closing non-Admin and the nominator have been blocked as sockpuppets, but there were four good Keep !vote and none for deletion. As for the editors of the article who were banned, see the SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowerman11/Archive. More COI and sock puppetry. Dougweller (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator is advised to read WP:LUC. Clearly the article merits inclusion per sources. -- Atama頭 00:41, 14 April 2010 (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.