- 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Khallet-el-Khazen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been unsourced, as well as tagged as so since 2015. A search for notability turned up nothing. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 07:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment, Google Maps shows a "Khallet Khazen" here, very close to the coordinates provided by NGA GEOnet Names Server (deep link to search results not possible) for what they officially call "Mazraat Khallet Khâzene", with "Mazra‘at Khallat Khāzin" offered as a variant. Can't determine if it is officially recognized such as is required to pass WP:GEOLAND but perhaps this can aid in searching. Antepenultimate ( talk) 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Adding this rather sparse offering (in French) from what appears to be some sort of NGO focused on local Lebanese development: Mazraat Khallet Khazen. Also according to OpenStreetMap (unreliable source) the place's name in Arabic may be مزرعة خلة خازن . Antepenultimate ( talk) 11:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Still nothing that suggest any sort of notability. How would it be determined that the location passes
WP:GEOLAND?
Boomer Vial
Holla! We gonna ball!
06:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Typically, some sort of indication that the location has legal recognition from the parent government, in this case Lebanon. Normally in these discussions this comes in the form of official census results (unless the location is defined only for the purpose of a census, such as a
census tract), evidence of location-specific elected or appointed officials, or receiving some sort of official government identifier (such as a postal code specific to the location). This is an intentionally low bar that is set by
WP:GEOLAND, which serves to combat the sort of
systemic bias that would result from accepting English-language Google results as if they were a thorough evaluation of notability for foreign locations; evidence of official recognition is a pretty good proxy that additional sources exist, although they may be offline and/or in unfamiliar languages. Areas without evidence of legal recognition (such as neighborhoods or unofficial regions) are evaluated via regular
WP:GNG. There is usually room for debate in any case, depending on the specifics of the location.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
11:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, if I'm understanding correctly, articles pass
WP:GEOLAND based on the fact that they are recognized to be owned by a parent government, it is undetermined that this area is recognized by the parent government in question (Lebanon), and no sort of notability can be established?
Boomer Vial
Holla! We gonna ball!
07:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Essentially yes, hence why I've only left a "comment" and not a !vote at this time. I personally would not consider the matter fully researched until someone who is capable of reading and searching in Arabic script has attempted to locate details (others may not share this level of caution). I have found some government resources that look promising, but the detailed documents are all in Arabic. Antepenultimate ( talk) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, if I'm understanding correctly, articles pass
WP:GEOLAND based on the fact that they are recognized to be owned by a parent government, it is undetermined that this area is recognized by the parent government in question (Lebanon), and no sort of notability can be established?
Boomer Vial
Holla! We gonna ball!
07:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Typically, some sort of indication that the location has legal recognition from the parent government, in this case Lebanon. Normally in these discussions this comes in the form of official census results (unless the location is defined only for the purpose of a census, such as a
census tract), evidence of location-specific elected or appointed officials, or receiving some sort of official government identifier (such as a postal code specific to the location). This is an intentionally low bar that is set by
WP:GEOLAND, which serves to combat the sort of
systemic bias that would result from accepting English-language Google results as if they were a thorough evaluation of notability for foreign locations; evidence of official recognition is a pretty good proxy that additional sources exist, although they may be offline and/or in unfamiliar languages. Areas without evidence of legal recognition (such as neighborhoods or unofficial regions) are evaluated via regular
WP:GNG. There is usually room for debate in any case, depending on the specifics of the location.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
11:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment The omonimous village has a stub article in Arabic WP. This short page in English is about the forest. Local biodiversity and ecological issues are mentioned in this article. Most notable feature appears to be this. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 16:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
84.73, none of those sources are considered reliable sources. Especially not flickr. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 06:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a populated and governmentally-protected area [1]). — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Wot fortuna said. Dloh cierekim 15:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps notable, but still unsourced in the actual article, making it fail WP:V beacuse the reader can't verify the content based on references provided in the article. Sandstein 10:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- tentative Delete as per Sandstein. Unless somebody can improve it significantly. The source linked to by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is a start, but we need a little more than that as validation, at least a second reliable source. And article needs cleanup. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This book appears to mention it, seems notable enough to pass WP:GEOLAND with the nature reserve there. Obviously needs work but no reason to delete just because no one's done any. CrispyGlover ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (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.
- 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Khallet-el-Khazen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been unsourced, as well as tagged as so since 2015. A search for notability turned up nothing. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 07:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment, Google Maps shows a "Khallet Khazen" here, very close to the coordinates provided by NGA GEOnet Names Server (deep link to search results not possible) for what they officially call "Mazraat Khallet Khâzene", with "Mazra‘at Khallat Khāzin" offered as a variant. Can't determine if it is officially recognized such as is required to pass WP:GEOLAND but perhaps this can aid in searching. Antepenultimate ( talk) 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Adding this rather sparse offering (in French) from what appears to be some sort of NGO focused on local Lebanese development: Mazraat Khallet Khazen. Also according to OpenStreetMap (unreliable source) the place's name in Arabic may be مزرعة خلة خازن . Antepenultimate ( talk) 11:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Still nothing that suggest any sort of notability. How would it be determined that the location passes
WP:GEOLAND?
Boomer Vial
Holla! We gonna ball!
06:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Typically, some sort of indication that the location has legal recognition from the parent government, in this case Lebanon. Normally in these discussions this comes in the form of official census results (unless the location is defined only for the purpose of a census, such as a
census tract), evidence of location-specific elected or appointed officials, or receiving some sort of official government identifier (such as a postal code specific to the location). This is an intentionally low bar that is set by
WP:GEOLAND, which serves to combat the sort of
systemic bias that would result from accepting English-language Google results as if they were a thorough evaluation of notability for foreign locations; evidence of official recognition is a pretty good proxy that additional sources exist, although they may be offline and/or in unfamiliar languages. Areas without evidence of legal recognition (such as neighborhoods or unofficial regions) are evaluated via regular
WP:GNG. There is usually room for debate in any case, depending on the specifics of the location.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
11:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, if I'm understanding correctly, articles pass
WP:GEOLAND based on the fact that they are recognized to be owned by a parent government, it is undetermined that this area is recognized by the parent government in question (Lebanon), and no sort of notability can be established?
Boomer Vial
Holla! We gonna ball!
07:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Essentially yes, hence why I've only left a "comment" and not a !vote at this time. I personally would not consider the matter fully researched until someone who is capable of reading and searching in Arabic script has attempted to locate details (others may not share this level of caution). I have found some government resources that look promising, but the detailed documents are all in Arabic. Antepenultimate ( talk) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, if I'm understanding correctly, articles pass
WP:GEOLAND based on the fact that they are recognized to be owned by a parent government, it is undetermined that this area is recognized by the parent government in question (Lebanon), and no sort of notability can be established?
Boomer Vial
Holla! We gonna ball!
07:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Typically, some sort of indication that the location has legal recognition from the parent government, in this case Lebanon. Normally in these discussions this comes in the form of official census results (unless the location is defined only for the purpose of a census, such as a
census tract), evidence of location-specific elected or appointed officials, or receiving some sort of official government identifier (such as a postal code specific to the location). This is an intentionally low bar that is set by
WP:GEOLAND, which serves to combat the sort of
systemic bias that would result from accepting English-language Google results as if they were a thorough evaluation of notability for foreign locations; evidence of official recognition is a pretty good proxy that additional sources exist, although they may be offline and/or in unfamiliar languages. Areas without evidence of legal recognition (such as neighborhoods or unofficial regions) are evaluated via regular
WP:GNG. There is usually room for debate in any case, depending on the specifics of the location.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
11:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment The omonimous village has a stub article in Arabic WP. This short page in English is about the forest. Local biodiversity and ecological issues are mentioned in this article. Most notable feature appears to be this. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 16:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
84.73, none of those sources are considered reliable sources. Especially not flickr. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 06:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a populated and governmentally-protected area [1]). — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Wot fortuna said. Dloh cierekim 15:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps notable, but still unsourced in the actual article, making it fail WP:V beacuse the reader can't verify the content based on references provided in the article. Sandstein 10:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- tentative Delete as per Sandstein. Unless somebody can improve it significantly. The source linked to by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is a start, but we need a little more than that as validation, at least a second reliable source. And article needs cleanup. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This book appears to mention it, seems notable enough to pass WP:GEOLAND with the nature reserve there. Obviously needs work but no reason to delete just because no one's done any. CrispyGlover ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (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.