Talk:1-800-Flowers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 feb 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

1800Flowers is a major online floral service. Currently ranks no. 1 in Google for the search word "flowers". My entry replaces several external links to 1800flowers

Please sign your posts. Being No 1 may be because it pays Google lots of money... Maustrauser 11:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is listed at No. 1 in the organic part of Google, not in the paid part--RYK 18:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Fact checking

This page and the dot com page had discrepant info aobut founding date (1986 and 1975). Can someone please check this? Avraham 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the ext link says the now-CEO opened his first retail flower shop in 1976 and acquired the 1-800 number in 1986. ×Meegs 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Some questions were raised concerning the company being "among the first retailers" to establish ties with AOL and CompuServe, as well as an online retail site. The source for this information has been added to the page. Hcl777 4:37, 20 August 2007

Which source do you think is adequate verification of these facts? I put the fact tags in because when I read through the 3 sources I did not find good verification. As far as I can tell none of the sources for this article seem to be independent or even particularly rigorous. There's the company page and then two interviews with company reps. I don't see anything that indicates someone unconnected with the company asserts they were among the first (let alone anyone not connected with the company who is an expert on Internet or marketing history). -- SiobhanHansa 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put in the reference section two independent sources: Internet Retailer Magazine, and Shop.Org which should put this to a rest. Hcl777 07:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid Camilla's removal of several entries in the "References" section. These articles were the sources which SiobhanHansa requested. Internet Retailer, Shop.Org, Direct Magazine, and SeekingAlpha are all well-respected, unbiased media sources for the Internet Retailing industry, and there is no indication that the company influenced these sources in any way. Hcl777 17:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Edits

Hi all. I just made a number of edits to the page to address the concerns that the page did not cover the importance of the subject matter. Most of the information is from a combination of the company's Investor Relations site (of course, keeping it objective), as well as various Web sites and news sources from the 1990s (e.g., Red Herring, Smart Computing), which substantiate the statement that "many regard it as an Internet pioneer"--I believe this is the main reason it was not removed after the AfD vote...this is currently the most well-known floral retailer in the U.S.

I agree 100% with the decision to remove the "Corporate Governance" section as non-encyclopedic. I debated whether to add in a "Companies Owned" section, but at the end of the day, there is precedent in Wikipedia articles for other retail conglomerates such as IAC/InterActiveCorp, particularly since several of the companies (e.g. Fannie May) are of historical significance.

[edit] BloomNet

A user using a Canadian dial-up service continues to vandalize parts of this article that talk about the BloomNet wire service. He/she is logging in through various dial-up IP addresses (206.162.235.4, 209.226.186.69, 229.226.186.63, 206.172.78.40, 206.172.78.120, etc.), and in addition to vandalizing this article, also seems to be font of vandalizing the floristry article.

If you don't feel that BloomNet is an important part of this company, let's talk about it here. But please, don't waste your time and ours, nor jeopardize all users on your IP address block by continuing this childish behavior. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hcl777 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Court case

a recent edit added information on a single court case. The case had not been resolved, the source appears to be a blog (though I believe a better source could be found) and the information just isn't encyclopedic. We wouldn't put in an individual case of the company providing excellent service, this sort of thing should be used only if it's indicative of their general service or the case becomes ground breaking or otherwise impactful on the world at large. While the whole situation must be terrible for the family involved in the case such information really isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. -- SiobhanHansa 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)