Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trius Therapeutics


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Trius Therapeutics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable drug company. All the coverage appears to be either routine coverage from the financial markets or coverage focused on Torezolid, which already has an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Company currently has no products for sale, just things in development. At first I thought this article from the San Diego Union Tribune amounted to significant coverage - but then I saw the telltale byline "Special to the U-T". What that means is that it was not staff-written, but supplied by an outside source (freelancer or PR firm), thus not subject to the usual editorial oversight. Search for the author's name reveals her to be a freelancer. Other news coverage seems similarly PR-ish. However, it's possible the company qualifies for an article under WP:LISTED. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In lieu of delete, redirect to Torezolid. (changing to Keep, see below) --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A redirect sounds sane. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I'm not sure how the fact that a newspaper article is by a freelancer makes it less of an indicator of notability; to me the main thing is that the editors felt the company was important enough to merit that much space in the paper. But anyway, I found some more coverage that goes a bit beyond PR/routine financials: Some AP stories;   , a San Diego Business Journal article about Trius and one other similar company (, Factiva link), a short WSJ article about the IPO , and a U-T article with several paragraphs about the company under its previous name, Rx3 Pharmaceuticals: . Toohool (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the additional sources found by Toohool - especially if a few of these are added to the article by someone, for example this one about their IPO. Looks like WP:LISTED was right again: "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above." Good work, Toohool. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - often just looking for sources and finding them resolves the issue. Thank you Toohool!. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of Toohool's links Zujua (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (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.