Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back Channel

Back Channel

Back Channel (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)

Prod removed citing, WP:GEOLAND, however as per #4 in that guideline (which is the pertinent citation), reads, "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." The commonality of this feature's name makes researching it difficult, but I cannot find the type of info necessary to meet the requirements of GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I removed the prod, also added citation of the this geographical feature's location. More can be gathered easily enough through sources regarding the Port of Long Beach or other nearby geographical features. Easily meets notability requirements under GEOLAND. South Nashua (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: Thanks South Nashua. I am now on board! - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)