Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Drug Mart


 * 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.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

International Drug Mart

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I believe this corporation fails WP:CORP and does not meet WP:N any other way. The references in the article now are primarily company promotional material. There are currently three apparently non-affiliated refs. One, this local senior circular "article", reads like a promotional piece and is housed on Google Docs. The fact that it lists the company's website and phone number and does not list a reporter's name leads me to believe it (meaning the article, not the circular) might not be independent. Regardless, I submit it does not meet WP:RS. The Express Buzz website might be an RS, but the article is about the company's boss (Pradeep Dadha) and does not even mention the name of the company. The third is a blog post from a cyber-intelligence firm (Cyveillance) that I added. It is probably ok for an article (but it is a close call), but I do not think it the type of source appropriate to establish notability, especially since it is highlighting what its author(s) see as a broader problem, actually focused on the online transaction security providers it mentioned, and seemed to choose this particular internet pharmacy as an example. I have been unable to find much other than press releases in Google News searches or in other searching. Novaseminary (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indented line

I believe strongly that International Drug Mart should remain on Wikipedia. That is because I know from my own frequent travels on business to Chennai (and no, I have no ties to this pharmacy or its management other than being a former customer when I visited one of their stores years ago), that International Drug Mart and Dadha Pharmacies provide a professional and well-run service for their many Indian customers, and more recently a growing number of foreign customers. Have any of you that speak against this pharmacy ever been to Chennai or for that matter, India? If not, how can you make a decision about a reputable business in southeast India that serves thousands of Chennai area residents every day and that you know so little about? And, importantly, some foreign customers are accessing more affordable prescription drugs from them, because they cannot pay the high prices (sometimes 50 to 100 percent higher) that drugmakers command in the US and some other countries. It is well known, and you can find multiple published references over the years that the US drug prices are the highest in the world.

Times have changed in the past decade. Do you know where most low-cost generic drugs sold at Wal-Mart stores today are made: India. Stop by a Wal-Mart or Target store in the US and the pharmacists will admit that if you pry it out of them or if you look at the drug packaging. I promise. They sell the same drugs made at the same plants as International Drug Mart and other licensed Indian pharmacies, but often the prices in India are lower because there are fewer middlemen in India, unlike with WalMart.

As to notability, there is a story here from the Canadian Broadcasting Company from 2009, as well as a monthly Senior Connection Newspaper in Hillsborough, Florida from 2008 I think that tells of International Drug Mart's long-time service to foreign customers, and without any problems with those customers. So, they definitely pass the notability test. Afterall, this is an Indian pharmacy, are you expecting to find English language stories from Newsweek and the Miami Herald? That's not what you will find because they primarily serve Indian people in the Chennai area, and Indians there primarily speak and produce news stories in Tamil and Hindi and other Indian languages -- not English.

Actually, (and I don't think this is the case here) based on my experience, I have found that many people that are most strongly opposed to foreign online pharmacies are typically real-life employees of the FDA and the major drug companies or their lobbying organizations, because they do not want to lose one penny from their billions of dollars in profits. (I used to do work with licensed Canadian pharmacies years ago, so I know this firsthand and from personally meeting with US legislators like Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in Washington, DC. That was 5+ years ago.) Yes, these companies still make money in India (as Pfizer India, Glaxo India, Wyeth India and others big drugmakers located there prove), but they make a bit less.

One more important note. Cyveillance, the cyber-intelligence firm, will of course say negative things about International Drug Mart or any pharmacy located outside of the US. Why? Because that firm represents the Food and Drug Administration, and the FDA (which gets millions in grant and other monies passed to it by drugmakers) is opposed to Americans buying drugs from any foreign pharmacy, although the US government does little to stop the popular practice. (See Cyveillance press release at: http://www.cyveillance.com/web/news/press_rel/2005/2005-06-13.asp) Cyveillance doesn't want to say anything that upsets their client the FDA, many of whose senior staff are former employees of drug companies as you probably know from the national news stories. Mykjoseph (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This press release on the company's website lists the same PR firm as a contact at the end of the release that Mykjoseph (this article's creator) claimed to work for on this talk page post. In fact, the very same email address is listed on the press release as Mykjoseph listed on this image template and this talk page post. Regardless, the CBC article makes only passing reference to the company and comes nowhere close to the coverage any variation of WP:N requires. And I already addressed the Senior Connection article in the nomination. Novaseminary (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Upon doing more research, I realized that the press release I mentioned above (also available here) bares a striking resemblance to the Senior Connnection article discussed in the nom. I think this further calls into question that source. Novaseminary (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete : No indication of notability in article as it stands (could be forty pharmacies - or only four). No indication given of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An associate of mine did a small project for them in 2008, nothing since. Not a client.Mykjoseph (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the press release that seems to have been the product of this small project served as the basis for the only "article" that has anything other than a trivial mention of the company. Was the Senior Connection "article" written entirely by this associate of yours? Novaseminary (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I told you what I know.Mykjoseph (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nobody is making any judgment on the quality of the company. However, I do not find any significant coverage about the company that would meet our inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2011 (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.