Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puna (wind)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puna (wind)

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

While there are no doubt cold winds in this region, I've listed the "wind" sense of wikt:puna on Wiktionary's verification forum, because I haven't found any literature which refers to the cold winds of this region by this name (i.e. "Puna" never means "a cold wind which, or such as the one which, blows through the Puna region of South America" AFAICT), nor do the Puna region's winds seem noteworthily distinct from the general phenomenon of wind. -sche (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article coud be renamed Puna wind, as "Puna wind" is mentioned in some older (1800s) works as one of several cold South American winds... but is it notable? -sche (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article — a single sentence about a non-notable subject — has been an uncited orphan since early 2009. -sche (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This wind does not appear to be even notable enough to transwiki, and I couldn't find a suitable redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (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.