- 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Schmidt (worker)
- Schmidt (worker) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In the absence of either references or explanation, there is no evidence that this character is notable, and we already have an article on the book. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains ( talk) 00:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I have added valid references to this page. NewRefs (talk) ( talk) 12:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 20:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 20:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article looks nothing like it did when nominated - more comments needed. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Article looks nothing like it did when nominated - more comments needed. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge or keep. I think the information is good and useful. I just don't know that it needs its own entire page. I think merging the content back into The Principles of Scientific Management might serve better. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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.