Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James C. Sharf

:{{la|James C. Sharf}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_C._Sharf Stats])

:({{Find sources|James C. Sharf}})

While the subject appears to be an accomplished individual with some significant involvement in the area of cognitive testing in employment, the article's only sources are an editorial on which he was one of several dozen co-signers, and what looks to be promotional material provided by his own firm. So, I looked around, and while there is some mention of the him on the web, there's not much. The "notable award" mentioned in the info box is legitimate, but not notable enough to warrant an article either. The article is basically promotional and non-encyclopedic.

Additionally, it looks like there is a significant conflict of interest issue in terms of one of the editors of this article. Holdek (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Appears totally unsourced and promotional, and the chap is not properly notable enough. There also appears to be a COI editor involved, not that that is a reason for deletion on its own, but nevertheless. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - Starting with his race norming work with the EEOC, Sharf has been a notable contributor to industrial-organizational psychology. Has three fellow designations (APA, APS, SIOP); that's usually enough for a keep via WP:PROF#C3. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

::I don't see any evidence that he's an APA fellow. He's a fellow of the other two, but, for example, APS has over 2,400 currently, so I don't think that qualifies as "highly selective." Holdek (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.
• Weak delete, though he is an elected Fellow of several societies, they do not appear to be highly selective in the numbers they promote to these positions, therefore don't count towards meeting WP:NACADEMICS notability criteria. Being one of 52 signatories of a 1994 editorial doesn't seem to amount to much either. Article currently lacks proof of major importance, though Sharf's longevity and minor recognition suggests I could be proved wrong. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete: Just being a competent professional is not grounds for notability. Two keep !votes do not show that subject meets WP:GNG, which it appears they do not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:59, 25 August 2014 (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.