Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordt Baxmann

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordt Baxmann[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG from a source search. I didn't think it was possible to be spammy about a fountain but Wikipedia isn't the place to talk about legends. DrStrauss talk 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia most certainly is a place to talk about legends, which are a major part of culture, but only notable legends. I have been unable to find any coverage of this one in reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going on the assumption that "legends" implies only rumours as sources but hey, we're agreeing :P DrStrauss talk 09:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After 400 years there are still no good published sources on this guy. Notability not met.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the first 3 words in the article and the one category, this is not an article on a fountain. The fountain clearly, without question, does not pass notability. Baxmann the individual, weather as a historical figure or as a fictional character/figure in folklore also does not pass notability. This is one of the worst examples of coat racking I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 29 October 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.