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. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anacor[edit]

Anacor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I did a PROD for this back in February due to the companies apparent lack of notability that was removed, because it might be notable since it was sold a lot of money. Nothing about the lack of notability has changed since then though. All of the sources in the article are either primary or extremely trivial and I can't find any that aren't. As an alternative to deletion it could potentially be merged to the company that bought it out Pfizer, but there would still have to be good secondary sources to back up whatever is merged. Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This nomination is incorrect because A 5.2 Billion dollar company that developed two FDA drugs is notable. Pfizer is a massive pharmaceutical company, Anacor is relatively small peanuts for pfizer, it would be weird to have an extensive discussion on that article. The FDA is not a primary source, an FDA press release notifying of the release of a new drug is highly significant i.e. their products are highly notable. Tavaborole is a particularly notable compound as it has a novel mechanism of action. In addition to the coverage you could find by typing Anacor FDA into google, a quick search of the academic literature will reveal many publications. PainProf (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either show me a policy that says "A 5.2 Billion dollar company that developed two FDA drugs is notable" or retract your vote. 5.2 billion is actually pretty pretty average in the world of pharmaceutical companies because it takes a lot of money to make drugs. Plus, Pharmaceutical companies get FDA approval for the drugs they develop. That's just how it works and there's nothing notable about it. Also, there's already articles about the drugs they developed. Which should be good enough. They aren't automatically notability just because they developed a few medications or have an about average net worth for the industry. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right.... but a pharmaceutical company that has actually made it to market is rare. The vast majority fail epically. Developing an FDA drug is a highly notable product, millions will take this drug, its fine to have an article about the company that made it. There are many promo articles on Wikipedia, which is a problem but any drug company that actually manages to bring an approved pharmaceutical drug to market is notable. This is a bad nom, you can just withdraw it.

. I'll take you argument a step further, Wayne Rooney gets coverage because he's a footballer, football is what he does, he can't be notable because he plays for England, a middling team who never won a world cup when he played for them. PainProf (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment that could be seen as not assuming good faith. PainProf (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference Original PROD reason "Nothing notable about the company. Except that it got bought out, but none of its products are notable and its not even clear what their products actually are. Seems more like an advert then anything." By the way you need to put a policy based reason for deletion, it is fairly clear why the PROD got rejected. PainProf (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My original PROD reason has nothing to do with the AfD or is in any way related to the reasons I gave for the AfD nomination. Nice try deflecting from the fact that you don't have a policy to back up your crap about it automatically being notable because it's worth 5 billion dollars though. I'm not retracting the nomination based on your clearly faulty reasoning. Either show me a guideline where 5 billion dollar companies are automatically notable, provide some in-depth non-trivial secondary sources about this, or go kick rocks. You already voted and made your opinion about it pretty clear. Both of which wre more then enough. Harassing me about the nomination and trying to turn it into some garbage WP:OSE argument isn't constructive. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Significant coverage defined by Wikipedia is:

A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,

A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,

A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product

1) Variously great or bad merger^[1][2]

2) Products have heaps of scholarly articles e.g. ^[3][4]

3) Or in notable industry blogs. The FDA determination of drug safety... PainProf (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uumm, Motley Fool isn't a reliable source because it's an opinion blog and the forth one isn't even about the company. Good job finding one good source though? Maybe? Even if you failed at it (mostly), trying to find sources is at least better then the other stuff. Even bad footwork is better then no footwork. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four, 1) Science Translational Medicine's (a highly respected academic journal) Blog is a highly reliable industry blog on pharmaceutical companies and the article on Boron therapeutics gives in depth coverage over the notable strategy of this company in Boron therapeutics (source 4), A review article based off many primary research articles is a highly reliable indication that the products the company produces are notable, where is your evidence the Motley fool is not reliable, it is neither deprecated nor listed as an unreliable source, it has journalists and engages in fact checking, all authors fill a COI disclosure. An opinion source about a company's merger shows that it is controversial. PainProf (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The nominator's argument appears to be that a pharmaceutical company is not notable if it produces drugs and makes money, and therefore any coverage it gets is routine and trivial. This is not a coherent argument. As PainProf has demonstrated, Anacor and its products have significant coverage and passes GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird that you would claim that about me since I specifically told PainProf to find non-routine sources about it and I even said one of the sources he come up with was non-trivial. That seems to just be the disingenuous way both of you are doing this though. Then you both go off about my "bad attitude." As if there isn't a reason I have one, like this and your crap in the other AfD. Or like your not the ones being disruptive with how your both acting and the arguing on your sides. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation may be becoming uncivil. Im striking an earlier comment that could have been phrased better. I encourage all editors to strike any profanities or comments directed at other editors as opposed to sources. PainProf (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Pfizer either Boron#Pharmaceutical_and_biological_applications or Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (see below). Basic due diligence shows Anacor dead as a doorknocker since 2016/2017. It hasn't been traded on NASDAQ, as the article still claims, for three years. The website www.anacor.com redirects without comment to its parent's splash page. Pfizer's 2019 Financial Report makes only one reference to Anacor as a wholly-owned subsidiary, an internal business unit which does not report separate financial results, or develop its own drugs, or issue press releases, or even maintain a separate web presence. The company has been eaten and digested. "Keep" is not a sensible option. By the way, the drug company Medivation was also eaten and digested by Pfizer, so similar cleanup is needed there too. --Lockley (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not the policy, just because a company merges it doesn't become non-notable, see WP:NTEMP.... It was an independent company and notable at the time prior to merger and because of merger. As a question Why should Pfizer's article have a section on Boron therapeutics, when 1) they sold off the drugs to Sandoz and 2 its not a core part of the business. This company was notable for Boron therapeutics specifically. Just being merged does not change notability. It doesn't matter that this company doesn't exist anymore. They are notable in the history of boron therapeutics as a major entity. Pfizer's article is also already 100k bytes and quite long, how would you propose to integrate this company which wasn't part of Pfizer when it was notable. PainProf (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this basis we should also delete Beecham Group, Sigma-Aldrich etc. These companies all merged into larger companies. Or what about companies broken up for pieces, sold to a bank, or defunct? PainProf (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Pfizer needs to be cut down anyway and adding this to it won't affect that any. Except for maybe pushing someone to actually do it. I don't think it being long should reflect on or effect what the best option for this article is anyway though. Plus, I don't think the article is or will be that long after whatever is badly sourced or not relevant is cut out of it anyway. For instance the first section is all about the chemical Boron and has absolutely nothing to do with the company. Whereas the second section is on drugs that already have their own articles and there isn't a need to talk about them in that much detail. So, the only thing that's actually relevant and worth merging is probably the lead. Which is extremely short. At least that's my analysis. Also, stop with the WP:OSE arguments already. Either stick to sound reasoning and guidelines or don't comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PainProf:. After reflection I think you have a point. My argument didn't address notability. I was so eager to point out that the patient whose health was under discussion had been deceased for awhile now, and so quick to whistle for an orderly, that I didn't address the notability issue head-on, and I should have. Anacor (2002-2016) may have been notable.

You've argued on the grounds of the dollar amount of the merger, the rarity of actual delivery of drugs through FDA approval, and the novelty of Tavaborole being Boron-based. Those two opposing Motley Fool articles seem likely to contain anything notable about Anacor and/or its merger aimed at a layman's understanding. The anti-merger piece says Pfizer was heavy with cash and hot for any partners, that they overpaid for Anacor's two producing assets, the toenail fungus treatment Kerydin (Tavaborole) and the eczema treatment crisaborole, that these only added to Pfizer's existing "inflammation and immunology portfolio", and they were going to get competitive pressure in that market segment anyway. The pro-merger piece says Pfizer overpaid but Anacor was working with Boron as "a new platform for drug design". Boron-based drugs have a wonky reputation but great potential, maybe, even in oncology. Supposedly Anacor's head made a tactical decision to develop topical anti-inflammatory products first, for money reasons (quicker approval times, faster payoff), while placing a longer R&D bet on other Boron-based PDE4 inhibitors, which have all kinds of applications. Meanwhile Pfizer had deep pockets that could set Anacor's researchers free, and a special interest in oncology. So, merger, great idea.

Your first argument, the big money argument, not a great argument. Look at the Pfizer page, at the long list of its corporate acquisitions, you'll see Anacor fits into a pattern, and moneywise simply wasn't a huge deal. Likewise for your second argument, it looks like the FDA approves about 40 drugs a year, with 59 approvals in 2018. Each of the associated companies wouldn't seem automatically notable to me. But the third argument, the boron thing, that's actually worth talking about. As you've pointed out there's been a fair amount of academic attention to that "new platform for drug design." I agree that story deserves encyclopedic attention. But not here, not in an article about a dead company. And anyway Anacor was not the only company with a boron-based drug on the market. Pharmaceutical boron chemistry didn't belong to them and doesn't belong to Pfizer (despite them holding a bunch of patents now). All that story belongs at Boron#Pharmaceutical_and_biological_applications, or at Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor.

Obviously I can't help that the Sigma-Aldrich page is so screwed up that the title and bolded name don't match, and the logo doesn't match either one. Obviously I don't care about the length of the Pfizer page right now, and you shouldn't either. One problem at a time. --Lockley (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply. re the parents that's certainly true, Sandoz distributes it now. But I'm sure you would agree as a matter of record they were developed by Anacor rather than Sandoz or Pfizer. The criticism of boron therapeutics is actually of a compound from this company co-developed with GSK. Your point made me realise the article focuses on only the successful compounds but there were a number of flops too e.g. the one on that page. For FDA approval, it might be trivial if these were me-too drugs but since they actually have a novel mechanism of action vs other drugs they are a far rarer endeavour. Moreover they are relatively small to have two drugs approved. And actually normally a corporation with the capacity to make drugs at that level will meet GNG even if it is a me-too drug. I'm not sure I agree with the analysis from the motley fool since Pfizer I think wanted the drugs since they didn't get Allegran, Pfizer itself has little interest in R+D and in recent years has become more purchaser than basic developer of drugs. Either way this comment essentially describes a notable company. I don't think it's possible or desirable to include all the encyclopedic information of Pfizer's acquisitions in Pfizer's article. Long articles are a consideration as they are harder to navigate particularly on mobile browsers, a very common way to access Wikipedia WP:sizerule. I would suggest a few lines at Pfizer with a link remains the best way. Similarly reliable sources seem to find it significant i.e. In the pipeline is a good industry blog. As another note we should be able to find a great deal more about the founding of this company. In this case it looks like the founders indeed revolutionised boron therapeutics started a company that actually made it. I.e. they are described as a first mover in the field.^[1] PainProf (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Bortezomib came to the U.S. market in 2003, making the developer Myogenics the "first mover" in the field of therapeutic boron chemistry. Myogenics is another defunct company. To me this is further proof that any encyclopedic discussion of Anacor's sole claim to fame, its role the history & potential of boron-based drugs, would belong in Boron or in Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, not here. Best. --Lockley (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep.Passes GNG but might need additional sourcesGeorgiamarlins (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There may be some notability but there does not seem to be sufficient secondary sources at the moment. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable 5.2 Billion dollar company: developed two FDA drugs is notable. The article passes our notability guidelines, and can be sourced further. Wm335td (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2020 (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.