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)
• Delete The MapCarta link seems to be a circular reference to Wikipedia. There is no mention of this feature in the Port of Long Beach article. I don't see how it really meets GEOLAND; can someone point to more information beyond statistics and coordinates? If there is so little information to support an encyclopaedic article maybe it should simply have a passing mention in the Port of Long Beach article? I am struggling to find any information of value. Poltair (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Port of Long Beach Here is the GNIS entry: [1]. It does seem to be a short canal connecting the Middle Harbor with the Inner Harbor. Looking at google maps: [2], you can see probably a dozen different channels, harbors, slips, basins, etc. that make up the Port of Long Beach. I see no value in having an article on each of these.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades ^Godric 04:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The Back Channel has been covered as being one of the tightest crossways in the Port;[3] the $1.3 bn bridge construction on the Back Channel has also been quite noticeable[4]; the back channel hosts the important Pier S Marine terminal;[5][6] the back channel is also considered amongst the most important regions of the Port, apart from the middle and inner harbor;[7] the back channel forms one of the five main navigable corridors of the port;[8] satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Lourdes 09:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. There are sources enough to establish notability under Geoland. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see how this is notable; the name is almost purely descriptive in nature, and the Back Channel at the port of Long Beach is not more important than any other one. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)