Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomex


 * 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; no calls for deletion outside of the nominator, who changed his input to support. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloomex

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article shows no proof of the subject being notable. D rew S mith  What I've done  18:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that with the addition of the "Controversy" section the page has become much more notable and relevant, as the company has, since its inception, been using the distancing and "anonymity" of the online business model to routinely defraud its clients; a growing problem with many online businesses. The company is thus notable and notorious for continuing to do business for many years (as seen in the newly sourced material) despite its outrageous practices. Bloomex is to flowers as Madoff or Enron are to investors. pale (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm going to have to say keep because it is well documented with sources and references. The external links and further readings section adds more weight to keeping this article. Per Palefist, strong keep. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep With the addition of sourced material to the controversy section, I have to change my vote to keep as this does establish notability. D rew S mith  What I've done  20:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the future, please check for sources before claiming something is not notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources for notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was unedited since December 2008 until editor" pale" made a discovery" Bloomex is to flowers as Madoff or Enron are to investors". I guess there is COI in Bloomex and editor " pale" Flowerman11 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2009 (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.