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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajagopal (professor)

[edit]

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

According to SSRN, Professor Rajagopal has published 40 papers which have been cited a total of 40 times. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, but according to that group's web site, "Fellowship is open to anyone anywhere in the world who shares or demonstrates a commitment to positive social change in their professional, civic or personal life" and who pays the £155 Fellowship fee. Thus, the professor does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF.

I also notice one comment on the talk page suggesting that the article is promotional in nature, balanced by another insisting that the page is not intended as an advertisement.

Query at WikiProject Biography science & academia received no immediate comments about the professor's notability. Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although promotionalism is no insuperable bar to an academic BLP a lack of citations is. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Don't see any obvious evidence of WP:PROF criteria here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously it was commented that this article looks like an advertisement and now a discussion has been floated to delete this article. I request all to look at from the perspective of academic contributions that this article generates. Professor Rajagopal is known in the field of innovaltive marketing and he has contributed a lot to the academics in his field. The new concepts developed and illustrated by him is being pursued for further research by the doctoral students of various business schools across the countries-notably in Mexico, USA, India, Sweeden,and Denmark. On the concepts generated by him also Bachelor's level theses were worked on by the students of Johnkoping University, Sweeden. What makes so agreessive in this article to be deleted from Wikipedeia? He is editor of three international journals of Inderscience (UK) and one of Emerald. I wonder why his credentials are considered as advertisement? From no angle I find this article a commercial objective.In the interest of the academic community I advise not to delete this article as it beholds academic value for research scholars. - Comment by Edo198 (talk · contribs) at 16:09, 26 June 2012‎ (UTC) moved here from article page by The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)— Edo198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Weak keep~~Very weak keep This is not a very good article and despite the above post, extremely promotional. It is claimed that the subject is editor-in-chief of two journals. The website of the International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing only lists him as a member of the editorial board, however (perhaps the appointment is recent and the website not yet updated). The website of the International Journal of Business Competition and Growth does list him as EIC. Although this journal does not currently have an article here, it would meet WP:NJournals, albeit barely. I don't find any citations in the Web of Science and Google Scholar only gives citation rates of less than 10 per article. In all, I think the editorship makes this a narrow pass of WP:PROF#8. If this article is kept, somebody should take a machete to this article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure what constitutes "a major well-established academic journal" for PROF#8, but International Journal of Business Competition and Growth has apparently published a total of six issues since its founding in 2011. It does not appear to be cataloged by EBSCO, ProQuest, Ingenta, Science Direct, or Web of Knowledge. Cnilep (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usually, we accept a journal to be "a major well-established academic journal" if it meets our inclusion criteria. According to its homepage, the International Journal of Business Competition and Growth is indexed in EconLit and InfoTrac. Although I personally would probably !vote "delete" if this journal were brought to AfD, in my experience these listings would probably lead most other editors to go for "keep". I've modified my own !vote here to "very weak keep"... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'known for' section in profile is too broad "Consumer behavior, Brand management, Sales management, International marketing". editor should refer to Sam Pitroda article to learn how to improve several sections.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2012 (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.