Debbie Schneider: Not enough in-depth coverage for them to pass WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 15:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as nommed.  I posted some advice on the creating editor's TP, hoping to get some sort of response, but it's been three days and so far nothing.  I could live with draftification, too, but the creator must expressly agree to this as they've already moved it out of drafts twice.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 15:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Discrimination , Organizations , Sexuality and gender ,  and Massachusetts .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Pinging User:SusunW as this AfD nom is relevant to earlier RfC discussion regarding SIGCOV requirements, and the effect it has on notability in practice for historically marginalised peoples as it stands I don’t think this article meets GNG or WP:BIO, regrettably Jack4576 ( talk ) 18:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commenting because I was pinged, but am not ! voting because WP:Canvas .  There is plenty to indicate that Schneider is notable, This (p9) says she was the Service Employees International Union's "International Vice President and the first SEIU Global Organizing Director".  This (p 149) says she was the international affairs staffer and a deputy trustee of the United Healthcare Workers.  This (p 15) says she was working as a union organizer in Cincinnati by 1986.  This (p19) says she was the regional coordinator of District 925 of the SEIU in 1989.  All indicate more significance than a routine worker.  That said, many sources from this period are not digitized and I do not have access to many of them.  This is going to take quite a bit of work by someone who has access to period sources, (period sources would be required as many of the current sources rely on the interview, thus are not independent) or a library with interlibrary loan abilities.  (I am not in the US and have no access to library loans.)  Debbie Schneider is a very common name and I would suggest searching using terms like "Debbie Schneider, Women Office Workers", "Debbie Schneider, United Healthcare Workers", ""Debbie Schneider, Service Employees International Union", etc.  As it stands, the sources used in the article do not constitute reliable secondary curated sources or sigcov.  The interview can be used to supplement data published in RS which establish notability, but it cannot be used to determine notability or as sigcov.  To constitute sigcov, sufficient curated, independent, reliable sources to give a career trajectory with biographical data would need to be found.  SusunW ( talk ) 20:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed there is plenty to indicate she is more likely than not notable in the colloquial sense but as it stands SIGCOV is the barrier to WP’s definition of notability Jack4576 ( talk ) 00:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 9to5 .  The organization appears to be marginally notable, but Schneider is not.  Being something other "than a routine worker" is not enough.  All I'm seeing are passing mentions.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 21:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - She also goes by Deborah Schneider, and articles at newspapers.com are available with that name.  I have added one to the article.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 22:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unfortunately I don’t think the passing references in those articles are going to amount to enough to satisfy the editors that demand SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 00:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am working on this.  Once I have a better sense of the information, I will expand my comments.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 00:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Schneider is best known for her work on negotiations at the University of Cincinnati that led to the founding of a clerical union.  She was the lead organizer during the period from 1984 at least through 1989 for this work.  The article with the most significant coverage of her dates from when she was named the national president of the District 925 union.  [1] In addition, she meets WP:BASIC given her coverage in multiple, reliable sources.  As I was considering this article, I have also tidied it up as it was redundant and had an inappropriate tone.  Should this article be kept, I think it should move to Deborah Schneider as that is the name more commonly found in the news.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 00:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep- I have added some secondary sources on 9to5 that mention Schneider's role in the organization to improve the notability, namely the Windham sources Public-historian-90 ( talk ) 15:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Flynn, Terry (July 9, 1993).  "Service-employees union leader becomes president of District 925" .  The Cincinnati Enquirer; Cincinnati, Ohio .  Retrieved 2023-05-13 .  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Should not be redirect to 9to5 , as Debbie Schneider has had positions in other organisations as well.  In terms of references, I discovered only a few that support the subject's importance.  It may be a Soft Keep, according to me.  Gothamk ( talk ) 06:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I am not seeing sufficient independent SIGCOV sources to warrant an article.  Articles written by colleagues like Karen Nussbaum and Ellen Cassedy, passing mentions and quotations (including pieces reporting what she said without quotation marks, and especially pieces derived from press releases) in local news, and PR from orgs she belongs to do not count towards notability.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:42, 3 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus