Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane Drug Stores


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Lane Drug Stores

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Three non-notable companies. None meets GNG; nor do all three together. Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article meets notability requirements per WP:CORP in general, and in particular per WP:LISTED being that one of the entities dealt with in the article was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In fact, all entitities dealt with in the article were large and visible businesses and were certainly notable in their time. But they were long defunct by the time the internet came around, which is why it may be difficult to find online sources. You can see in the article itself numerous citations to the Wall Street Journal. Disclosure: I had done research and worked to significantly improve this article before it was nominated for deletion 205.156.84.229 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per those, the corp still has to meet GNG. Which this does not. We have many pre-internet older companies that meet GNG. This isn't one of them. Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. 16:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. 16:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 (talk)


 * Delete: There's just no "there" there. WP:LISTED explicitly says that just being listed on the NYSE isn't an automatic pass, and that subjects still need to pass the GNG.  It's not enough to claim that sources ought to exist: you have to demonstrate that they DO exist.  Nha Trang  Allons! 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails GNG. Also, looks like a lame attempt ar promotionalism. Quis separabit?  03:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacking some significant coverage as well as blatantly promotional. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete None of these 3 places are notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Possibly could add a line in Rexall and Rite Aid Corporation pages about the relevant companies. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the delete !vote rationale. I'm not even sure there is sufficient notability even to encumber the other entries with a like on non-notable companies. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2015 (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.