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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Sorry but after three relists, it's time to call this a hung jury and declare a mistrial. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mataf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not sourced, not cited, not verified. Pin points to the sea, so presumably this phantom community has sunk since. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bogus uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a false statement to call the articel "bogus" when the location is easily sourced, and the article is 19 words according to DYK Check, not 3 as the user suggests. Sam Sailor 23:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Crappy coordinates that have now been corrected. But this one was easy to source with just English language GBook sources, so please re-evaluate Mme/MM (Alexandermcnabb—Lugnuts—Softlavender), it meets GEOLAND. Sam Sailor 20:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sam Sailor: Two citations have been added to the article, neither of which confirm that this is a currently extant "suburb of Ras Al Khaimah". This 1985 citation [1] says that Al Mataf was an area of settlement at the port of Julfar (now Ras Al Khaimah) from the mid 14th C to the mid 17th C. This 2001 citation [2] says it was a walled-in area of the hut settlement Julfar (now Ras Al Khaimah) prior to the 17th C. Both of them speak of archaeology but not of current existence. Softlavender (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a bit too obvious that you have not searched for any sources before slapping on {{unreferenced}} in the articles and copy-pasting a terse and factually wrong vote in this and most of the other nominations in this series, see e.g. the comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Masafirah. What about checking the corrected coordinates if you want "current existence"? Sam Sailor 20:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve per Sam Sailor. Satisfies GEOLAND and GNG. It does not matter when a topic existed, per NTEMP. James500 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Guys, believe me (and I know, I know, OR is a baaad thing), there is no settlement called Al Mataf at this location. It's a suburb of RAK city, it's not notable as a settlement and it's not even a named suburb today. So why's it notable? Would it pass new article review? No, it wouldn't. I'm sure it existed once, in some form, but its existence is notable historically for what? Nothing. Today its name - probably a palm grove or field, even a couple of barasti dwellings or a few fisherman's huts - may live on in an occasional business name or even the name of a block but it's part of RAK now if it was ever anything - and was never known as anything in its own right. It doesn't merit an article on WP. Unless you want to name EVERY SINGLE BLOCK of RAK and every other city block or area in the UAE that used to be somewhere that never was quite anywhere. And that's the wormhole I have been trying to avoid in deleting all of these silly, archaic and unsourced - not notable - articles. If there was ever a settlement of Mataf, it was never historically notable and it doesn't exist as a place of note in modern Ras Al Khaimah. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This remains a problematic stub, one of about 100 unsourced, inaccurate and plain wrong stubs all created by a single admin ten years ago. I have deleted most of these, which have over the years resulted in false positive geographical carnage on the web. It's not a notable place in of itself and fails WP:GEOLAND in that it is not a 'legally recognised settlement' but is an area, a small urban block, in modern Ras Al Khaimah which is of no notability in its own right other than it's a block in RAK. As are tens of other suburbs, blocks and roads which we don't name on WP and which, if I did attempt to start pages for them all, would all fail new article review. As would this article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2018 (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.