Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ready Flowers


 * 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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ready Flowers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company just hasn't received a depth of coverage from what I can see. It looks like there was a brief smattering of news articles in 2012 due to a snafu with customer orders, but other than that I can't find where there's been any other coverage. It certainly doesn't show a depth of coverage. There is a 2013 speech about the company, but the topic of it is the 2012 issues so it's not a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some other sources on the talk page, but by large they deal with the same customer issues in 2012. The best one I could find was this article, but the website doesn't entirely seem like it'd be a RS. This 2007 one is a bit better, but it's hidden behind a paywall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a great deal of history within this article. Please review the "Talk" pages. Readyflowers has developed its own trail which is now documented and covered by several newspapers and by the Senate of Australia. The information is still very relevant and is regularly accessed by the general public. This make the page relevant to the needs of the readers and researchers who use information sites such as Wikipedia for their day to day research needs.

Furthermore - the Readyflowers article has been subject to multiple peer reviews i.e. Wiki Editors that have developed the article to its current format. Please see history and peer review history of the article.

I hope Tokyogirl79user talk:Tokyogirl79this gives you insight as to how this article has evolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.13.94 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 April 2014‎ (UTC)


 * There was only one peer review, and it was relatively limited, addressing the issue of possible biased editing. I don't think the existence of the peer review really makes much difference in this AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what C. Fred said. The problem here is that the company seems to only be known for WP:ONEEVENT rather than for a long history of running a company. When it comes to getting coverage for one event, a mass of sources doesn't really mean much unless the event is so monumental that it stands as a hallmark for years to come. In other words, the event has to be big enough that it'd get very wide global recognition and is very, very likely to get commented on in 5+ years. Other than one complaint at the Senate by someone who was personally involved in the events of 2012, Ready Flowers hasn't received this coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, a peer review doesn't really guarantee that something passes notability guidelines. It's more just to solve whatever the current issue was at the time, which was biased/paid editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The file for Readyflowers remains open - it is with the Office of Fair Trading. Comments have been raised in the Senate. This is still very much an ongoing case.

Furthermore - I do believe the Tokyogirl is not independent and is acting in the best interests of Readyflowers. The language they are using, attempts to make changes to the page, information they are re-introducing into Readyflowers articles all follow a very similar patter to past attempts by the owner and others associated with the company to manipulate this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.13.94 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 April 2014‎ (UTC)


 * If it is "an ongoing case", why are there no sources any newer than May 2013?
 * Also, please remember to assume good faith in fellow editors. I don't see anything in Tokyogirl's behaviour to suggest a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved with Ready Flowers in the slightest and up until I made those first edits, I actually wasn't even truly aware they existed. However what I was concerned with is that there was undue weight put upon the events in 2012. The company's conduct during that time period was exceedingly poor, but they really didn't get that much coverage when you get down to it. Making a huge section labeled "customer reactions" in an article that's really only 2 paragraphs seems a little over the top. It also had some issues with flow, which I corrected. The list of customer complaints is still there, but it just kind of flows a little better. As far as the ongoing case issues go, you'd have to show where the cases are actually getting coverage. Companies have complaints levied against them all the time, so to show that the events in 2012 are still relevant enough today (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) you'd have to show where they're still getting coverage. Otherwise well... it's pretty much just a mediocre company that recived little to no coverage until they screwed up. We're not here to be RipOff Reports for various companies. We have to show where the company passes WP:CORP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, something to remember is that while we wouldn't allow people to edit the article with the agenda to make it biased towards the company, neither should we edit it to be biased against the company. It should be neutral and there shouldn't be a movement to have it particularly positive or negative. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominator. There is no way that this company passes the notability guidelines, and no way in hell that Tokyogirl is related to the company. If she is indeed operating on their behalf, I find it hard to believe that it would only surface now, years after she started editing here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Based on the comments above and the talk page discussion, the article begs the question: "Without the 2012 customer complaint issue, would the company still warrant an appearance in Wikipedia?" No, it wouldn't, the article would have been deleted per CSD G-11. Had these complaints not arisen, the article would lose four out of it's five references. The single reference that would remain is also related to customer/industry dissatisfaction with the company. It is also an analysis piece by an online newspaper and therefore WP:NEWSORG applies: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact;" in other words a failure per WP:RS and by extension unable to satisfy WP:CORP. Turning to the "reason" given for the company's notability, i.e. the complaints, WP:ONEEVENT aside, these fail WP:EVENTCRIT, because they do not possess enduring historical significance or have a significant lasting effect. ► Philg88 ◄  ♦talk 07:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Change of vote intention 20th April 2014 (previously had "keep"). Sorry if IP is anon - unable to login with my old user name. Change of vote intention as after thinking about comments raised. This is an online business model with no real notability. If this is record is kept, then it opens the door to thousands of other online companies wanting to use Wikipedia as a business directory. Other than a business listing, that's about where it stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.69.38 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - the number of articles on this company (with more coming), makes this company notable for being infamous. It also helps illustrate how selling flowers on the internet is evolving and the associated problems. 124.171.209.243 (talk)
 * Delete- Unable to find any source that would help the subject to reach WP:NCORP standard. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  04:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin- IPs !voting keep here belong to a common autonomous system number (ASN). AS numbers are important because the ASN uniquely identifies each network on the Internet. WP:DUCK case! Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  04:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit by User:Thegarty makes me suspicious that this is the owner of Ready Flowers coming on to vote, as I believe that this account had been confirmed to be Hegarty elsewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the concern in the past over a potential use of sockpuppetry, I'm going to open up an official SPI and find out for certain, to avoid any further potential concerns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Opened here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:59, 19 April 2014 (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.