Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl J. Sheperis


 * 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 delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Carl J. Sheperis

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG, and with an H index of 11, and no positions which qualify, does not meet NACADEMIC.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. Citation record looks light for WP:NPROF C1, and I didn't find reviews to support WP:NAUTHOR.  Fellow of the ACA is a possible pass of WP:NPROF C3, if independent sourcing could be found for this, but the article is fairly promotional and is also misleading in several places -- it until recently claimed he worked at Texas A&M (rather than for a regional campus of the same), it claims he was Editor of journals (implying chief editor?) that he seems to have merely been on the editorial board for.  If somehow kept, this article would need rewriting essentially from the ground up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: he appears to have a solid pass of WP:NPROF#4, with seven textbooks. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: copyvio, actually. I'll tag it in a minute. Original here: . -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The copyvio text has been revdelled, so I guess the AfD can proceed without a speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Citation record not strong enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF, especially as psychology is often a high-citation field. His position as (former) dean is not high enough in the administrative hierarchy for #C6. We don't have the kind of in-depth media attention that could lead to WP:GNG notability, or published books with reviews that could lead to WP:AUTHOR notability. But that still leaves "Fellow of the American Counseling Association" (maybe WP:PROF) and president of the Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling (maybe #C6) as avenues for notability. I can't find sourcing for being a Fellow other than Sheperis's self-written biographical profiles, and I can't tell from how selective this fellowship is. And the Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling does not appear to be an independent and notable organization, but rather a division of the American Counseling Association, so his position as president would not have been the highest-level administrative position in this organization. Therefore, I am not convinced by either of these possibilities, and leaning towards delete rather than keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. 87.123.39.218 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. A few works with triple-digit citations and his Counseling Research book is held in almost 200 libraries (WorldCat). 128.252.154.2 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2022 (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.