Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marathon Pharmaceuticals


 * 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. There is a rough consensus here that the article (just) passes the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Marathon Pharmaceuticals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Has not yet developed any new drugs. Its products are all long used routine drugs.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating the first treatment for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy would definitely be notable - though it seems like the company's treatment is in clinical trial stage and not approved yet. Still, the fact that they're working on this medication is notable. Thanks --Contented300 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contented300 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Each drug has value for specific patients, so even if these drugs are older, the company is still "noteable." What's "noteable" is in the eye of the beholder. I follow this company because of the drugs for severely disabled patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy that they are in the process of bringing forward. There are no meds now for these patients so the fact that they are developing one does indeed make them "noteable." This would be a huge breakthrough for these patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartanSister (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — SpartanSister (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable, has multiple sources.  Also Jeffrey S. Aronin merits an individual article, is clearly notable. -- do  ncr  am  02:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Could use more sources, but has enough independent third party sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Question for both of you, Which sources in the article did you consider to be independent third party sources AND about this company? Of the 12 references provided I identified only one, and it's an interview with the CEO so only partially independent. My analysis was that the other 11 references are either self-referential or they don't mention Marathon. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not going to do all the work that could be done on sorting out and documenting what new drugs Marathon is responsible for, and finding coverage about those drugs, and on sorting out which older drugs Marathon might merely be manufacturing without any new innovation. I have replied to assertions of contradictions in the record, below, and am done for now.  I stand with belief that this firm is notable in fact, and is shown already to be notable in the article. -- do  ncr  am  19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I am still working on this, but I have found significant contradictions in the record about this company. The article says the company was founded in 2010 by Jeffrey Aronin. But the company's own website says "Over the past 12 years, our team has brought 30 medications to market in 87 countries." This implies that the company was founded in 2002, not 2010. This news release talks about Marathon Pharmaceuticals being acquired by Cambrex in 2001. Will continue to investigate but I have serious problems with keeping an article that seems to contradict itself, or at the very least contain to significant unverified information. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Further: "2010" isn't a typo, it's from this interview with Aronin. Completely contradicted by the company's own website. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the "founded in 2010 by Aronin" assertions from the article, as they are not supported from that interview or anywhere else AFAIK. It appears to be careless previous editing that created that incorrect conflation. -- do  ncr  am  18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And one more contradiction asserted is not one. In "the company's own website" assertion quoted above, it is NOT stated that Marathon was founded in 2002.  It states that during 2002 to 2014, members of its current leadership team successfully brought 30 medications to market, e.g. Aronin doing that within other entities counts.  This is highly relevant information for a startup company's business plan/website to report. -- do  ncr  am  19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec, twice) Good catch of some possible contradictions to explain. But, hmm, the Suntimes interview does not state that he founded Marathon then;  he is mentioned as founder of Paragon.  However, while there may be some editing required, and some untangling of corporate relationships, methinks that calls for editing, not deleting. This Suntimes article cited in the article states that Aronin founded Ovation in 2002 and sold it in 2009, then a year later (2010?) founded Paragon Pharmaceouticals.  Paragon subsequently acquired startups including Marathon.  So, Marathon could have existed in startup for longer, with or without Aronin involved.  It seems likely to me that Aronin did not found Marathon, but rather acquired/invested in it in 2010.  Does this work:  Marathon could have been started pre-2001, been acquired by Cambrex in 2001, been acquired/invested into by Aronin in 2010.  And it is definitely possible that the current Marathon Pharmaceutical LLC legal entity had previous legal entities broadly called Marathon Pharmaceuticals (e.g. but not being an LLC).  This seems more likely to me than there having existed two completely unrelated Marathon Pharmaceutical entities, but that is also possible. -- do  ncr  am  18:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Leaving aside the verifiability problems I cited above, I just don't find the coverage necessary to meet WP:CORP. The references cited in the article are mostly self-referential or are not about Marathon. The only significant independent reference is an interview with Jeffrey Aronin that mentions Marathon. I could find nothing more in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As i comment above, I don't see that there are obvious contradictions in the sources, while there may be some editing in the Wikipedia article required. I personally think notability is established. -- do  ncr  am  18:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This has been edited since the initial AfD, and has more secondary sources to prove notability. Frmorrison (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The Chicago Sun-Times article is the only source that clearly meets WP:CORP, assuming that the FDA is a primary source rather than a secondary source. However, a few minutes' research suggests that there are further press articles mentioning Marathon that would further help meet the threshold.  P.S. Aronin's multiple pharma business ventures seem to confuse the facts in the discussion above.
 * Weak keep I'm pretty sure the USFDA is a reliable source, and for sure the Chicago Sun-Times is, but I am not sure if StreetInsider or Fierce Biotech are or not, but based on the fact that there are at least two reliable sources in the article, that is enough in my book to pass WP:GNG and WP:V.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:28, 1 August 2014 (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.