Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAP (health technology and life science)


 * 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

MAP (health technology and life science)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No actual evidence of notability for the Australian company MAP Biotech. I couldn't find good independent sources about them (searching for "MAP Biotech" or for "MAP" "Bloch-Jorgensen"). Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine,  and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Mental health is one of the biggest scourges of modern society. It is encumbered upon all of us to disseminate information from reliable sources to the vulnerable. In terms of notability, please refer to


 * Comment That article fails as a reliable source since it is marked as an advertisement.

WAAPHC (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and the source you provided is a passing mention. I likewise cannot find sources that meet the particularly stringent sourcing requirements for companies. Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 02:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with 'righting wrongs' - The article 'reports what is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion'. MAP discovered Centeredness Theory and the significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources used show that this has had a demonstrable effect on science.WAAPHC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Written like an advertisement, fails our standards both for corporations and for medical topics. Kill it with fire. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Part of a promotional walled garden built around Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Gusfriend (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails our criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.  HighKing++ 19:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional and with no evidence (in our article or in searches) of passing WP:NCORP. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2022 (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.