Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanser Bach

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 delete. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lanser Bach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is an unsourced article. It is not clear to me what this actually is. Is it a river? (according to the article it is, but I don't believe it) Is it a brook? Or just a drainage ditch? (as it appears in the photo) Whatever it is, it does not appear to be notable since I cannot find any sources. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete There is a German WP article but it says even less than the English article; there are also a couple of other commons pictures, which show a very small creek running through a field: one could easily stand straddling it. Bach would generally translate to "brook" or "creek", so at this point this seems to be a rather minor stream. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero news results and two book results which seem like passing mentions ("Weil der Lanser Bach wegen seiner Wasserbringung für die beiden Badeanstalten als Vorfluter praktisch ausschied , blieb nur die Entscheidung zwischen der zweiten und dritten Möglichkeit über . Und nun galt es für die Gemeinde ..." → "Because the Lanser Bach was practically ruled out as a receiving water for the two bathing establishments because of its water supply, only the decision between the second and third option remained. And now it was true for the congregation ..."). Nothing to phone home about. jp×g 03:26, 17 May 2021 (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.