Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmidt (worker)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmidt (worker) has been a topic of interest for a long time, and its impact extends to different areas of life. From its influence on popular culture to its relevance in technological advances, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmidt (worker) has left a significant mark on society. In this article, we will explore the different facets of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmidt (worker), from its origins to its evolution today. We will analyze its impact on history, science, politics and other relevant areas. Additionally, we will examine how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmidt (worker) has shaped our perceptions and influenced our decisions over the years. Join us on this journey to discover the impact of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmidt (worker) on our lives!
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) (edit | 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 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)
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)
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.