Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Scharler

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. ✗plicit 01:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Scharler

[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)

Promotional article, content created by SPAs. No evidence of notability presented, under WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. WP:BEFORE shows no coverage, let alone anything up to the standards required for a WP:BLP to exist. Of the two RSes, one contains no biographical detail, and the other is a 404. PROD removed by an SPA on the article, without fixing sourcing problems. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A few superficial (i.e., not WP:SIGCOV) write-ups of how he connected his toaster to Twitter are insufficient grounds to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an academic with only about 150 citations, he doesn't meet WP:SCHOLAR. His patents may be insignificant unless used in major products or technology, and based on provided sources, it doesn't appear so. As an actor he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Peter303x (talk) 22:40, 2 August 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.