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. I think the high rank in a survey by a reliable market research firm is very much a demonstration of notability--I accept their expertise., especially since trade sources thing that ranking worth covering; I'd be reluctant to close keep on that alone, since not everyone might agree, but there are other reliable sources also. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Neighbor Pharmacy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Sources were added but are press releases and/or product reviews. Concern was:Small, non notable trade group association with no substantial claim to importance. Plenty of listings but Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTYELLOW). No reliable sources (WP:RS) or references that assert notability for organisations per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, sources look decent to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I endorsed the PROD, and I see the same problems Kudpung outlined above. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 02:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the off-chance there could be any confusion, this is my alternate account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. It is not biased. The organization exists and is quite large if not famous. dml (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note; dml is DavidLevinson, the creator of the article (not to cast aspersions, merely so people know). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Large and famous, or free of bias are not Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, WP:ORG needs to be satisfied with Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in non-independent sources that doesn't establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am the editor that recently included the third-party references in the article, and I did so after I did a search to see for myself if I thought it passed the notability test. A couple of the links started to make me think so, but it was really the J.D. Powers & Associate top ranking for consumer satisfaction in their industry that makes me really think it is notable. As a side note, being a network of independant pharmacies, I think Good Neighbor may suffer in areas such as advertising spending that its corporate competitors do not suffer from; this may contribute to the subject not being mentioned in as many reliable sources. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think rankings lists are much good for establishing notability unless they would confer notability on everything else on the list (i.e. Fortune 500 companies). It's best summed up here (I trust you can find what I'm talking about). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, barely notable, and article is not acting as an advert nor coatrack. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ArcAngel. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:ORG notability threshold of independent, reliable, third-party sources with any significance. JFHJr (㊟) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good Neighbor Pharmacy is the largest retailer's cooperative for pharmacies in the US. They do a fair amount of national advertising (I think they even have their own NASCAR stock car). Regardless, while the article has existed since 2005, the reliable sources that have been recently added establish notability under both WP:GNG AND WP:ORG. Gobonobo ^T ^C 01:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources now in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment]- The sources provided are taken from a primary source: The Good Neighbor Pharmacy's own press release. Extensive coverage in independent articles in established news media is not available - WP:ORG is not met. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are three Good Neighbor Pharmacies within four blocks of my house. That fact is not a reason to keep this article, but other editors have provided references and shown the notability of the organization. Perhaps I will add some photographs of GNP businesses for this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.