Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klee Passage

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. Per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klee Passage

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable channel of water. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, as there are sources to support this (search Klee Passage Marshall). Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's now sourced. It's not the Don Bradman of water features in terms of notability but I think it still passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GEOLAND is is now sourced. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:41, 1 May 2020 (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.