Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udo Schaefer

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. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Udo Schaefer

[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)

Fails WP:BASIC thus WP:AUTHOR Serv181920 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a terrible substub but the author seems to be notable enough for a keep, after looking at the German Wikipedia article. This is a list of reviews of books by Schaefer, who appears to have been one of the foremost Baha'i scholars in Germany. —Kusma (t·c) 11:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, Except for one or two, all of his articles seems to have been published in the Baha'i journals. According to WP:BIO "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."Serv181920 (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the google translation of the German wikipedia page, the subject seems to easily meet WP:BASIC thus WP:AUTHOR Yes the article needs improvement, but the subject is notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the research and comments above.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:21, 14 December 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.