Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rata'ii

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. Verifiability is an issue according to all commenters. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rata'ii

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

This seems more like a dictionary definition than an article RES2773 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also fails WP:N and a very short unreferenced stub. The Snowager-is awake 03:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable source to verify the information. If someone can find one, I'm happy to consider changing my recommendation. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems more like a dictionary definition than an article RES2773 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)RES2773[reply]
Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs) 09:08, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were properly sourced, we could at least merge and redirect it to a table of unusual weights and measures in which it could be cross-listed among others. But without sources, we don't even have that option. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A unit of measurement is not a dictionary topic. Although Rata'ii is referred to by Mithqal and Mithqaal, I couldn't verify the contents of this article. We do need to find some sourcing but I don't think deletion is the best way to get there. ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2015 (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.