Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh K Pillania

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 --JForget 22:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rajesh K Pillania

Rajesh K Pillania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The "references" appear to mostly be message board posts and product pages for consultancy firms... I think. I'm a little confused by this. The CSD#G11 concerns were never fully addressed, so let's talk it out here. Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I suspect that the following users are all the same person, attempting to promote Dr. Pillania's work. I do not (yet) see a disruptive editing pattern, so I have not reported this to WP:SSP, but please be advised: Greatlife999 (talk · contribs), Davidman21 (talk · contribs), Intellect12345 (talk · contribs), Globallight (talk · contribs), FreeSpirit111 (talk · contribs), Davidfisherman (talk · contribs), Globalacumen (talk · contribs), Globaljoy (talk · contribs), 123bluesky (talk · contribs) and Worldstorey (talk · contribs). --Jaysweet (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - as per nom. Frankly I am surprised some enterprising politico or entrepreneur hasn't already tried to gaslight us before. Who knows? Someone might have, but not this guy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually happens all the time :) Probably every day, multiple times a day. The trick is catching them ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - nothing to see here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A Google Scholar search suggests he's a published academic. The relevant notability guideline is WP:PROF. However, his articles don't appear to be widely cited, so there is no indication that he is notable among academics. Happy to change opinion if evidence of notability is found. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A few research articles do not make a scholar notable. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete The references are a disorganised list of publication, mastheads of journals where he;s an editor, etc., but among them is [1] which lists his actual journal articles. There are 18 of t hem, they're in a range of medium to low quality management journals. As for the editorships, they're apparently national Indian journals--such editorships for major journals are significant to notability, but I'm not sure about these. For what it's worth, he's an Assistant professor, and, even at the best universities, they're not usually notable. DGG (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Excellent Achievements In academic world being advisory/editorial baord member of international reseach journals/conferences is one of the most prestigious aspect and it is recogintion of the work of the academician.All the journal listed here are international journals (and not indian as written above)from reputed publishers like Wiley, Emerald, Palgrave,OR Society UK, inderscience etc.We need to look at the peer group and other members in the advisory board.That consists of some of the top most professors across the world from harvard to other top schools.Also being an assistant professor and than being recognised adds more credibility to his achievements.It may be also possible that all the references are not given in the reference list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyhighsky (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC) — Flyhighsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Mad world This is my first time and last time on wikipedia.It is by accident as the person before me left this page open and I came across this discussion.Three specific issues related to this discusion.First,in academics we academician are against Wikipedia,because it is not a authentic source of information and we warn students when they use Wikipedia as reference because the information is not authentic.Thus to think of that any academician will use wikipedia for publicity is a completely wrong idea as suggested by the first two writers Jaysweet and Arcayne.Being on wikipedia doesnt help any academician and infact it is more damaging than of any help as you lose the academic rigour and credibility by being on such websites.Second,the assumptions many are making here are invalid and information is wrong.For example.it is not number of articles,but it is the quality that matters and so Deepak D'Souza is wrong in making the observation.Further, the information given by DDG that all journals are Indian is again wrong as well as about faculty desgination.Third and last, If you look from academic and research point of view, this guy have a lot of credibility and achievements at a very young age (assuming he is an assistant professor)but I would recommed you to delete him so that he/she is not subjected to such poor treatment by any tom dick and herry.My last advice or input, kindly close wikipedia as it is diluting the truth and rigour of facts and world as any tom dick and harry with a computer and internet access can log in and write anything about anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professortan (talk • contribs) 15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC) — Professortan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment Thank you, Mr Pillania, for letting us know that you do not consider Wikipedia information to be authentic. But then, why are you trying so hard to create an article about yourself and preserve it?. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Dont Delete-I am 123blueskyI am the one who started this page after having seen some works of this professor but than has not visited wikipedia for long time.I support the article that i have created after observing some works of this professor.I have four reasons/comments to make.First,I think the professor is notable if we look at his presence in large number of international research journals from various reputed publishers like Wiley,Emerlad, Palgrave, OR Society etc to list a few.In academic world it is only a select group of professors that are part of advisory/editorial board members of research journals.These professors first publish in journals, than review for the journals and once their work is recognised than they are made a part of the select group of professors who are experts in the area and well recognised.This professor is well recognised in the area of Knowledge Management in particular and is advisory member of some of the top journals in knowledge management Knowledge and Process Management, Knowledge Management Research & Practice,and Learning Organisation to name a few.Similary look at the other areas like strategy and emerging markets.Second,he serves in the advisory boards of groups like KMPro and international scientific committees of various conferences and award committees of Academy of Management annual conference etc to name a few.Third, the publication list is long and some of the papers are in prestigious journals.Fourth and last,kindly check the assumptions and statements we all are making here and how valid they are.

1.The statement of Jaysweet about reference list: reference list appear to mostly be message board posts and product pages for consultancy firms..is not correct as these references are of editorial boards/academic conference committes.

2.The statements of Arcayne and Jasweet about getting popularity and same person are based more on suscipion and are against the diginity of human beings.My purpose of starting this page was not to give publicity to someone but to en rich the database of Wikipedia.

3.Ryan Paddy is making a asumption that only source of finding the citation is Google scholar.We needto think beyond google.

4.Professortan being a academician has taken it personal and is wrong in using certain words and he should have used more polite words to show his disagrement and apprecited some contribution of wikipedia.

5.Mr Deepak D'Souza is making many assumptions and most of them are wrong.The last comment on Professor Tan comments is very personal and against the spirit of discussion.In a free and democratic discussion, we need to appreciate some criticism also as sometimes it helps us.In India there are many people with the sir name pillania(more than 100000s in rajasthan) and than assuming that professor pillania is creating all this is in a very bad taste.Also it is surprining that the comments of Professor Tan are deleted.

6.It is your choice and your call, but try to make the system based more on trust and respect for fellow human beings. 13:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Writerandreader (talk) I strongly believe Prof Pillania need to be a part of wikipedia. — Writerandreader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Writerandreader -- please immediately stop creating new accounts every time you log into Wikipedia. Either don't log in and edit from an IP address, or just create one account and stick with it. Creation of multiple accounts is considered highly disruptive. See WP:SOCK for more information. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Let me for a minute take it for granted that my assumption is wrong. Even then it does not make this article notable. You, whoever you are , have been trying too hard. you have created multiple ids in order to preserve this article. We can easily report you for sockpuppetry and get all your IDs blocked. Wikipedia faces hundreds , probably thousands of articles written by people who consider themselves notable or write articles about their parents , uncles etc. Your is not the only case . So please dont think that we have anything personal against Mr Pillania. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure he is not socking on purpose, I think he just forgets his login every time... heh... each one of the accounts appears, makes like three edits that day, and then disappears. It's not like he's managing a big sockfarm. I honestly think he just can't remember his password! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw that he denied it in point #2 above. Frankly, I find that insulting to my intelligence, to say that those aren't all the same accounts. Sheesh... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (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.