Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dart Drug

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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dart Drug[edit]

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

Was a non-notable Landover, Maryland based retail drug chain which had no significant coverage outside of the DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia markets. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Point of reference, yes I am aware that Dart was part of a larger company (Dart Group) which owned Crown Books and Trak Auto but they have nothing to do with this AfD they may have their own merits, this is about the merits of the drug retail division which again does not have significant enough cover outside of the DC market to warrant its own Wikipedia article. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep GBook searches pulled up, as the first hits, some prominent cases in which Dart was involved. I think the nominator needed to have looked a little harder. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Mangoe: it would be useful if you could give specific sources, not just a vague allusion to a google search. Relisting to allow time for that, and for people to evaluate the sources thus presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the GBook references provide any in-depth information on the company. The Pension Book refers to the company in a scandal involving selling the pension scheme but there's nothing in the article referring to this and there isn't a lot of information in the book about the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The Reluctant Capitalists has a couple of mentions-in-passing but again fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The company also appears to have been involved in a court battle, Dart Drug v. Parke, Davis & Co, but this also isn't mentioned in the article. Overall, company appears to fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Park Davis suit is recounted in the article on Herbert Haft, the chain's founder. In lieu of deletion I would suggest a redirect there if we decide a stand-alone article is not in order. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much corp indepth, mostly about the court cases. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORGDEPTH to be a stand alone article in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ok I'm going to go against the grain here, but I think there is significant merit for keeping this and I urge everyone to reconsider your !votes. I argue that Dart Group is a notable entity as a holding company beyond its notable subsidiaries. There is coverage in WSJ, Fortune Magazine, the New York Times #1, the New York Times #2, as well as ample coverage in the Washington Post which has been dismissed as being "Local." This corporation was a Major, Publicly traded corp with over 10k employees. This unreliable source gives significant detail which shows that there is plenty of material that exists on this corporation for an encyclopedic article, only the need to dig it out of news archives etc. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This coverage, first hit in GBooks search, is also quite significant. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the WP:GNG, so its notable enough to have an article. The reliable sources mentioned by Fiftytwo thirty clearly demonstrate this. Dream Focus 18:28, 30 March 2018 (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.