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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congress of Essential Workers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: the only source that mentions CoEW more than once is the In These Times source, which does NOT cover CoEW, but merely mentions it as a predecessor to Amazon Labor Union, which is what the article is about. Women's Wear Daily is a source for news on FASHION, NOT politics, and the Los Angeles Times mentions it only once as the group protesting in front of Jeff Bezos' house. Searching the web, I did not find any other sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (As creator of article) Due to meeting WP:GNG based on the WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable sources, including:

1. https://inthesetimes.com/article/amazon-workers-band-together-to-form-labor-union-against-amazon-jeff-bezos-chris-smalls In These Times is a reliable source, the article says a lot about the organisation and it's set up, that's easy to see and so I think the nominator is mistaken.
2. https://wwd.com/business-news/business-features/amazon-chris-smalls-workers-group-1203631429/ Yes Women's Wear Daily is a notable fashion industry trade journal, and so it's logical to cover trade disputes and has a focus on retail (the org is about online retail workers). It's a trade journal established in 1910 (over 100 years of experience) with a full editorial department https://wwd.com/about-us/

And yes, the mention in the LA Times is brief, and so is the mention in New York Magazine, but the two pieces of significant coverage give us enough to make a start length article, so matches my expectations of something to keep. CT55555(talk) 01:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Amazon Labor Union - Just to clarify, I first thought of starting a Merge discussion, to merge the relevant parts of history into the Amazon Labor Union article, but I figured that the better way to start the discussion was here (since you created this as its own article rather than as history in ALU). My opinion is that the InTheseTimes article was written in May 2022, thereby only covering CoEW because it became ALU, rather than as its own organization, and that the Women's Wear Daily article only states: "...Smalls is starting The Congress of Essential Workers, or TCOEW, a rank-and-file committee that is going to be..." so it can't be said to be biographical of CoEW. Additionally, since this org no longer exists, it won't be getting more coverage in the future (other than coverage as a predessor to ALU). So I would really vote for "Merge".---Avatar317^(talk) 01:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)striking the ivote of the nominator. The nominator does not get to ivote in the AfD. Delete, keep, draft, redirect, merge are all outcomes to be decided by editors. The nominator has already ivoted by nominating. WP:DISCUSSAFD Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Searching the web, I did not find any other sources" but I just did a full WP:BEFORE search and found three books with more information, which I added in. I mention in case that persuades you. CT55555(talk) 02:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I see no reason to assume no more coverage will be coming, unless you only consider news sources (which does seem to be what happened here) because I can see potential for academic writing and books to write more about the chain of events that lead to the first union of USA's 2nd biggest employer. I consider it most likely that more content will come. CT55555(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have just added contain nothing more than small mentions of this organization as one of many pursing similar goals/agendas; meaning we still do not have a single source to establish notability of this organization *in its own right* (other than as a predecessor to ALU).

I agree with you that more academic coverage may be coming, but that is merely (again) because as you said CoEW is part of "the chain of events that lead to the first union of USA's 2nd biggest employer."

My main point here is that because there has not been any WP:GNG type news about this org, means that it never accomplished enough in its own right to generate enough news coverage to be notable, and therefore does not meet the qualifications for its own separate article.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree about the relevance of it only being notable because of something else. Things either pass the general notability guideline or they don't. We don't delete things just because they have a more notable relation or successor. For example:

1. Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company would probably not be notable if it wasn't for IBM, but it still is notable.
2. If Joe Biden didn't get so famous, would Neilia Hunter Biden even have been notable? Probably not, but he did and she passes GNG
3. Probably Kasper Rørsted wouldn't be notable if he didn't get he Adidas job, should we merge him into the Adidas article? No, he's notable in his own right.

Things can be notable, even if they are less notable than the thing they are closest to.

Let's get even more specifically similar:

1. Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers is the predecessor to United Steelworkers, both are notable
2. American Nurses Foundation is an arm of American Nurses Association. But because it passes WP:GNG it's OK for both to have articles.

Many things are mostly notable because of something else, but that's not important. What is important is if there is reliable sources with significant coverage. There is. CT55555(talk) 04:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have minor coverage in ONE source and single mentions in multiple sources; not enough for GNG, in my opinion. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that was correct, I might agree, but my first reply to you includes links to an In These Times article that talks about the org significantly and a trade magazine article that is specifically about the org. CT55555(talk) 03:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The InTheseTimes article gives minor coverage (not significant) and (as I already said above) the trade magazine (Women's Wear Daily) states: ...Smalls is starting The Congress of Essential Workers, or TCOEW, a rank-and-file committee that is going to be..., written 10 days after he started it, so it can't be said to be biographical of CoEW; an article describing the hopes and aspirations of a yet-to-be organization is only coverage of the starter's dreams/hopes, which may not turn out to be what the org actually does. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 16:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Amazon Labor Union. They seem to be the same organisation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not the same organization. I think the way to look at it is that Congress of Essential Workers created a new and different (but connected) organizationAmazon Labor Union. Even after the second organization was stared , the first one is still active, they were tweeting last month https://twitter.com/tcoew The same twitter bio mentioned that the former org is supporting the later org. CT55555(talk) 04:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello CT55555. Thank you for the explanation, I will amend my !vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the predecessor to the Amazon Labor Union is notable and is covered in reliable sources like the LA Times. We have enough for an encyclopedic article on the subject. Lightburst (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Lightburst. Didn't the Congress evolve into the ALU, instead of them being separate organisations? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is notable. Follow the WP:RSs. Bruxton (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am leaning towards keep based on my initial research, which seems to indicate TCOEW is more than a predecessor because it has functioned as an umbrella organization that includes the ALU, e.g. Vice 2021, distinguishes TCOEW from other unions, including ALU, WaPo 2022, identifies Jordan Flowers as a current member of TCOEW and ALU. Perhaps a broader research focus on the past and current activities of this organization can help support its notability per the WP:NONPROFIT guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I think I have mischaracterised/misunderstood the predecessor/successor dynamic when I created this one and in forming/verifying my reply above to MrsST, I understood it the way you have said it above. CT55555(talk) 17:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is some general context related to the background/formation of the organization in this 2020 NYT source, and: "Smalls is planning more labor actions and hoping to organize workers under a new banner — the Congress of Essential Workers. ‘‘We want to use a union­like structure but not call it a union,’’ he said. ‘‘A lot of employees at Amazon are afraid of unions.’’" Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be a separate organisation to the ALU. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:46, 13 December 2022 (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.