Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back Channel

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 to delete. Merging and/or renaming can be a subsequent discussion, there does not appear to be consensus on these points here, but three relists is enough.

I'll point out (this is not part of the close) that Back Channel (Port of Long Beach) would be unnecessary disambiguation. A title such as Back Channel, Port of Long Beach may be more advisable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back Channel

(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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. MB 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep (Added subsequently: If Kept, the article may be renamed to Back Channel (Port of Long Beach) to specifically refer to the Port rather than give an allusion of being a generic name. This is as per the quite logical points raised below by Power~enwiki. Thanks. Lourdes 00:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)) 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)[reply]
Keep. There are sources enough to establish notability under Geoland. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hello Power~enwiki, the name Back Channel is a proper name, and not just a descriptive one (see the sources I've provided above). As per our notability guideline WP:GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." The sources I've provided above are beyond statistics and coordinates. If you believe the other channels are also as notable, then someone should make articles on those. Why do you then believe the Back Channel is not notable? Would you say it doesn't qualify under GEOLAND? Your reply would be helpful in understanding your position. Thanks. Lourdes 17:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back Channel is a generic term, regardless of how it is used for this body of water. It can refer to back channels on the Mississippi River [9], for example. I don't think it meets GEOLAND; it says "Named natural features are often notable". Often is not always. As a compromise, I would reluctantly support renaming the article to something like "Back Channel (Port of Long Beach)", but still feel deletion is more appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, I think you have a fair point there. The renaming is something I hadn't thought of, and adds a new perspective which I agree with. I've added this detail to my !vote above (that if kept, the article should be renamed to what you have mentioned). Thanks. Lourdes 00:28, 9 May 2017 (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.