Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pharmacy associations

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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pharmacy associations

This article is a complete violation of WP:EL and WP:NOT. It is a linkfarm - with hundreds of external links, has no prose text explaining the list, and so serves as nothing but a directory. Reformatting it to make it not a link farm would still be a directory, and removing the directory style to only include notable associations would leave nothing but a handful of entries. This list could be fixed, but if nobody does then it's better off deleting it until someone can recreate it as a frest start in a style agreeing with wikipedia policies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn after massive cleanup. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of medical organisations. I have removed all external and red links -- not much left. —G716 <^T·_C> 13:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory. Superchain (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are scores (perhaps hundreds) of articles of the type "List of ..." that are collections of articles with a theme. These are not generally considered directories. —G716 <^T·_C> 16:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The account is a Hilary T sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed all external and redlinks and added more articles to the list —G716 <^T·_C> 16:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some more limited articles, these are notable. Totally appropriate list. DGG (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleaned up. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in present form as a list of notable associations it is notable and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (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.