Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAP countries


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

MAP countries
AfDs for this article: 
 * – Articles for deletion/MAP countries View log  •  )

Either doesn't seem to exist in real life or not very notable. Can't find much info on it. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the busted-up nomination but I can't seem to repair it. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - essentially arbitrary grouping of nations, not enough coverage to establish notability. Claritas § 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any verification as to this acronym.My76Strat (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any sourcing to support such a grouping. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to add a fact tag after the articles first sentence instead of deleting the whole thing ? Sansonic (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid not. The topic of the article is unverifiable; completely unverifiable articles have to be deleted. If you can provide any sources at all that refer to such a grouping of these three nations, that would be a start. As it is, the article is original research. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if there are no sources which refer to the MAP pact specifically then we will have to pull the article. I am sure that there will be some coverage of this grouping in the near future, but for now I will do as the rules say and allow the article to be deleted. Thanks, Sansonic (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete*** I don't find any specific sources. Hash789 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete With all due respect to the creator of the article, who may know something I don't, a group of ancient shoe-repairers comes to my mind. This is a rather disparate grouping with no evidence available for its existence. Even the references given don't support anything much more than the existence of the countries. If anyone (desperate plea follows...) can give evidence, please do and I will apologise. I prefer keeping articles (despite my record of deletion tags applied...). PS I've moved someone's citations needed tag to what I think is a better place. The statement it was applied to is obvious. The one where it is needed comes before it. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that it even matters, but I placed the initial tag, and it was posted exactly as you have shown it. An interim edit squeezed the additional sentence in front of the tag moving it. In either regard it was my initial response after having no success at verification of the acronym. The subsequent actions and the fact it is now here in some measure shows that maintenance tags can effectively alert an article which may be problematic. My vote is also recorded above. Kind regards. My76Strat (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2010 (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.