Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ready Flowers
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  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  and by extension unable to satisfy . Turning to the "reason" given for the company's notability, i.e. the complaints,  aside, these fail , because they do not possess enduring historical significance or have a significant lasting effect
— User:Philg88, 07:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CSD||WP:NEWSORG||WP:RS||WP:CORP||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:EVENTCRIT (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion)