Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles W. Herbster

Charles W. Herbster

[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)

Far WP:TOOSOON for this primary candidate. Sources, which are formatted oddly, do not indicate that Herbster passes WP:NPOL at this time, or WP:GNG for that matter. Users should edit Draft:Charles Herbster until the primary. If he wins, I would support the creation of a page. KidAd • SPEAK 16:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is about a businessman with some interest and influence in politics. Herbster is CEO of a multi-million dollar agriculture direct sales company (Conklin Company) and of a multi-million dollar cattle breeding company (North American Breeders). He was chairman of Trumps agriculture policy campaign committee. Reliable sourced articles the are substantially about Herbster include [1], [2], [3], and [4] - all four are from different years and cover substantially different events in Herbster's career. Full D - I am the primary editor of the page and was unaware of KidAd's draft when I published. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holding leadership positions at local companies isn't enough for Herbster to meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. The Trump campaign role is pretty flimsy as well. And another thing, why in the world is this page called "Charles W. Herbster" when Charles Herbster already exists? Why didn't the creator of the "W." page just remove the redirect on the main page? If there is no consensus to delete, I support a move to Charles Herbster. The "W." page should redirect to the main page, not the other way around. KidAd • SPEAK 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the W, Herbster uses the W in his professional materials, such as the "Charles W. Herbster foundation" and in government filings for the Conklin Company. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to see how many reliable sources refer to him as "Charles W. Herbster." Local companies and his foundation are not reliable sources. KidAd • SPEAK 17:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more material from a Nov 2017 profile of Herbster in the livestock show magazine, The Showtimes, which was published as a part of his induction into the magazines "Hall of Fame". The article can be read here or on the magazines webpage, here. I'm not sure if being inducted in the magazine's HoF should move the needle on anyone's !vote, but it does profile him with the middle initial, which is why I bring it up here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to 2022 Nebraska gubernatorial election as non-notable. No distinctions worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to fuss, but what do you mean by worthiness? For a figure like this, WP:NOTWHOSWHO seems the closest to a call for "worthiness", which is why I pointed out that there are multiple, independent of each other and of Herbster, reliable, local and non-local sources covering multiple, independent, activities of Herbster (I'm thinking of WP:SIRS here). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having multiple independent sources makes Mr. Herbster verifiable. That's necessary but not sufficient to keep the article. Notability is a separate issue, and the sources don't point to any single notable accomplishment either as businessperson or candidate. Yet. IMO he comes closest to significance as a major political donor, one probably-a-record donation to another candidate after his own abortive 2013 run. I've changed my vote, though, thanks for making me look closer. (BTW, WP:SIRS is written to apply to organizations and companies.) --Lockley (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. It sounds like your definition of worthiness has to do with notable accomplishments, then? My reading of WP:N is that this is covered by WP:SIGCOV (which is a section of WP:N) and, in a way, WP:NOR. Or is there some other policy that you are going off of? What makes an accomplishment notable is, otherwise, subjective. I think it is fine to have subjective reasons for a !vote, I may be misreading your points, or something else may be going on. As for WP:SIRS, to me that is one of the clearer objective definitions of N in our guidelines, which is why I pointed to it. BY my reading of WP:NBIO, we have a bunch of sufficient qualifications but nothing necessary except, "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under WP:N". Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]