Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradyumana Khokle


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pradyumana Khokle

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. 1 hit in gnews, hardly anything in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  08:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  08:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Gscoholar returns two hits for "Pradyumana W. Khokle". Getcited shows 1 journal article and 2 working papers. He has been covered in the passing in mainstream indian media - indian express, business standard1, business standard2, DNA. I dont think this is enough to meet WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not familiar with finding sources for academics so I'm not making this comment specific to this AfD; a Prof at India's premier management school should be notable, but given that most management school academics focus on teaching and consulting as opposed to research, the standard cites bit might not be helpful. - Spaceman  Spiff  18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i was thinking among the same lines after voting for a delete. research output in indian B schools is scarcer than worldwide (who needs research for teaching people to sell tooth paste for hindustan lever ;-)). WP:PROF looks like insurmountable for most of the Indian B school faculty. Since there is a specific policy for academics, can it be overruled for cases like these?--Sodabottle (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * if he doesn't meet WP:PROF he needs to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Overrule? That may give the impression of trying to circumvent long-standing consensus on what constitutes notability. Why not also consider the possibility that academics who are primarily teachers are not really notable per se? What is needed here is to find something that sets this person apart, i.e. that makes them notable. This "something" can be lots of things: an award, election to a selective society, recognition for having had some sort of impact on the teaching field, write-ups in newspapers, etc. With all due respect, I would spend time trying to find something like this instead of thinking about how to get around the consensus requirements. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC).
 * I think i have given the mistaken impression that i am trying to circumvent the consensus requirements. Please note i have not modified my original Delete vote. I voted delete according to WP:PROF and am still standing by it. What SpacemanSpiff and i are musing about is how WP:PROF is difficult for academics/faculty in B schools (and especially in Indian B schools) to meet. Spiff was pointing out IIM A, in which the subject is a faculty is the "premier" (the number one) B school in the country and he is not able to meet Wikipedia requirements. I was just asking a honest question, can the policy be overruled (or is there any precedent)  for specific cases. Hope this clarifies what is going on here. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Essentially, AfD is the process of overruling a motion to delete an article in that a consensus of "keep" will result in the article being retained. There are lots of possible bases for arguing a case, though WP:PROF seems pretty clearly to be the appropriate one here. You may be asking whether WP:PROF itself can be "overruled" and I would say the answer is probably "no", simply because it's been well-thought-out and provides really a very broad basis for claiming notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete. Article does not really make a claim of notability. A few GS hits, but no citations. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (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.