Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1800Flowers


 * 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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

1800Flowers
saved from prod as "notable" but is clearly an advertising stub Thatcher131 16:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete blatent valentine's day inspired adcruft.--Isotope23 17:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up. Definitely notable, but there's nothing here worth saving. 128.231.88.4 18:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising.  (aeropagitica)   22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, but clean up. This doesn't read like an ad (it doesn't read like much of anything at all) & it is notable under WP:CORP --Karnesky 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful stub, notable company. Grandmasterka 02:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn/ad. Blnguyen 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CORP. Well-known to listeners of talk radio in the US. Should probably have a cleanup tag added.  young  american  (talk) [[Image:Flag of West Virginia.svg|25px|  ]] [[Image:Flag of Wales (1959–present).svg|25px|  ]] 14:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up. That means it needs to be expanded before the end of the AFD and then I may change then. See User:Stifle/Keep and cleanup for rationale. Stifle 16:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I gave it a quickie cleanup to fit within the guidelines of a stub.  young  american  (talk) [[Image:Flag of West Virginia.svg|25px|  ]] [[Image:Flag of Wales (1959–present).svg|25px|  ]] 16:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly how it should work. Keep. Stifle 16:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded it a bit more and reworked the name. If the article survives AfD, it should be renamed 1-800-Flowers.  young  american  (talk) [[Image:Flag of West Virginia.svg|25px|  ]] [[Image:Flag of Wales (1959–present).svg|25px|  ]] 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a notable company, established for almost 20 years by now. Survived the dotcom crash. --Vizcarra 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename 1-800-Flowers. Notable company.  Nice clean-up by young American TMS63112 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet criteria for keeping articles on companies: it's not in any stock index, there's no indication of number of employees or revenues, and its sole notability is due to its own advertising (this article possibly included); include this one, and we'll have every company that advertises somewhat, or has revenue of some revealed amount...etc. Very bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Keep I stand corrected; I couldn't find a link to "Investor Relations" on its website and drew an erroneous conclusion. In my view $700M+ revenues merits inclusion. Carlossuarez46 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The above is inaccurate. It is on NASDAQ as "FLWS."  As a publicly traded company, you can find the requested info (733.74M USD revenue; 3000 employees). Finally, there has been a lot of non-trivial, non-ad press on the company. --Karnesky 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable company, page needs clean-up/expansion however.--Jersey Devil 06:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep – company is large, 20 years old, publicly-traded, and most importantly, has been advertising ad nauseum on the radio nation-wide (U.S.) for as long as I remember. They are infamous if not famous. A rename to  1-800-Flowers or 1-800-Flowers.com per TMS63112, would be a good idea too.  ×Meegs 23:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Obviously notable and appears to have been cleaned up since the first few delete votes were cast. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.