Talk:List of pharmacies

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 7 November 2015, see discussion.
keep, 4 July 2013 (UTC), see discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scope of this Wiki page

If this wikipedia page listed all pharmacies in the world, it would go on forever. Some pharmacies are associated with national and international stores while other pharmacies are completely independent entities. In light of this, I am suggesting that some criteria be developed as to what pharmacies to include on this page and what pharmacies to not include. I suggest that this Wikipedia page only include pharmacies that have locations throughout the country that they are filed under. If there is a pharmacy that doesn't meet this criteria, add a note in this talk page advising why this pharmacy should be entered. Suggestions.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have removed (from the Canada section) several "Big Box" type stores that may have a pharmacy within their locations, but were not themselves (or on their Article pages) considered Pharmacies, nor were their Articles in any pharma related categories. I would suggest a guide line that includes something like "independently located, not housed within a larger company store" Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of pharmacies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100314123633/http://www.skainfo.com:80/index.php? to http://www.skainfo.com/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of pharmacies RFC

Thanks to all who commented, Consensus was reached to get rid of the ones that don't have articles so I'll get rid of them all, Thanks again. –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should pharmacies that don't have articles be delinked, deleted or should they remain as they are?, We have a few "pharmacy accounts" adding their names to the list[1][2][3] and in reality it's now becoming one big advertisement for non notable pharmacies, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all that don't have articles - Some may well be big however leaving them as they are means any small non notable pharmacy can add themselves to the article and as I said above it's becoming one big advertisement, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delink - there's no point to making a bad link. Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the redlinks are mostly from countries from which we have very few editors. I suspect that some of them could be made into plausible articles, just as the ones from the US and UK. But until we do have editors willing to do the work, there's no point in having them here, as we have no way of telling which of them might actually be notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole people don't seem to like red links. My only thought is that there should be some language in the list lede to the effect that the pharmacies *include* the following, as opposed to *are* the following so that it is clear that the list is not exhaustive. Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, or people will keep trying to add to it without really having any info but a business name. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all that don't have articles This whole article truly has no raison d'être. It is one of those Wikipedia articles that conform to the typical rules about notability but serve no purpose whatsoever, and certainly not any information-offering, encyclopaedic purpose. Trimming away all red links would be a step towards making something decent out of it. -The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all that don't have articles - Unfortunately, I don't think there's a practical way to tell which are potential new articles, which are spam, and which are just mom-and-pop shops added in good faith. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those without articles. It's standard operating procedure for a list of this sort to have inclusion criteria set to "entries must be notable" when spam/cruft becomes a problem. For finite sets of things, the criteria are often more permissive (by design – WP:Notability really applies to whether something can have it's own separate article not whether it can be mentioned). But there is effectively no end to pharmacies; a new one opens every day somewhere. WP:SAL allows consensus to form about whatever inclusion criteria seem best for a particular list, and notability is a common line drawn. For something like pharmacies, this is a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy matter, even aside from the WP:COI/WP:SPAM/WP:SOAPBOX problem of pharmacists or pharmacy reps adding themselves. See also WP:NOT#DIRECTORY policy, which the whole list verges on transgressing. The list's inclusion criteria could be a little more lax than straight notability, such as at least one reliable independent source with non-trivial coverage, but few pharmacies make the news other than incidentally (e.g., being mentioned in a police report about a shoplifting arrest made there, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious violations apply here, and they've already been covered by previous commenters. Of course, if a pharmacy in question is in fact Notable, it's only a matter of time before it recieves it's own article, thus allowing it to be on the list. Alt. Eno 16:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all entries without articles . . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all entries without articles except those that have one navigable link - Summoned by bot. Similar to WP:DABSTYLE, each entry should have a navigable (blue) link, normally as the entry itself, or in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked. So, even if a pharmacy name is redlinked, if its owner/parent is notable and bluelinked, it should stay. Standalone redlinked articles should be deleted, per the good arguments above. Timtempleton (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable entries - (randomly invited by a bot) Technically an entry might be notable (i.e. have reliable sources, etc.) and not have an article, but I'm okay with the expediency of requiring an article, especially on pages that are subject to persistent abuse. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entries which do not have an article — Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —Paleo Neonate - 04:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all that don't have articles - Summoned by bot. This is an issue I come across very frequently and I always remove the relinks from the list that are almost always non-notable. Meatsgains (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TOC generator - Ignore

Adding extraneous section to generate TOC