Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple


 * 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. No evidence of notability. Author would do well to read MezzoMezzo's comments. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are hundreds of articles in the Book stub cat, many of them more obscure than this one; so why is this one being singled out? If the article is too short or missing sources, you could first have asked for them. You didn't even notify the deletion sorting lists about this nomination for deletion. The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination. Not liking what a book says is not really a good reason for voting for its deletion; in fact it is a very bad reason. Book pages are absolutely relevant to Wikipedia. I think a lot of people are voting because they don't like the idea of the book. The problem is not that his works are not notable, the problem is that the author is very controversial. It is a very controversial author, so that even 20 years after the publication, some people still advocate to shun him and censor his writings (I'm not referring to the nominator for deletion).
 * It is not only the book article which should be expanded and also enlarged with sources, it it the author article itself which has serious NPOV problems, according to this link:
 * Koenraad Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate were the first publications by a western scholar on the debate, and remain the most well-known ones on the Hindu side. Very prominent politicians like L.K. Advani have cited extensively from his books on Ayodhya debate, as was reported in Indian newspapers. "The book was presented to the world by L.K. Advani and Girilal Jain, and thereby appeared on the cover of most Indian newspapers." Peter Heehs in " Myth, History and Theory" calls Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate the "best-known publications" for the Hindu side. Elst also participated/published his Ayodhya research (some of it in his Ayodhya book) in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. Others who have reviewed his work on this debate are Paul Teunissen and many more. The famous author Kushwant Singh also commented on it. Elst's books on the Ayodhya debate have been reviewed by professor R.N. Rao and Koenraad Elst himself has reviewed books on this topic in academic journals and published articles in journals including the Journal of Indian History and Culture about the Ayodhya debate.
 * To show how controversial this book is, I can quote from one of the chapters in the book:
 * This paper was written as an adaptation from an earlier paper, "The Ayodhya debate", published in the conference proceedings of the 1991 International Ramayana Conference, which had taken place in my hometown, Leuven.1 The present version represents my own text prepared for the October 1995 Annual South Asia Conference in Madison, Wisconsin, U. S.A. A few notes have been added. When it was my turn, I was heckled somewhat by the Leftist crowd, especially by a well-known Indo-American Communist academic, who was rolling his eyes like a madman and making obscene gestures until an elderly American lady sitting next to him told him to behave. At the end, Mathew came to collect a copy of my text (the book version, of which I had some author's copies handy), called me a "liar", and told his buddies that they needed to write a scholarly rebuttal.  Which is still being awaited today.--Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC) — Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Looks like a campaign for the promotion of the author. Nothing significant for inclusion. Fails WP:BKCRIT. Iniciativass (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a campaign against the author because of the author's views. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the notability guidelines? Read WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK. You have posted essential the same wallotext on four AFD`s, none of which actually give a policy based rational to keep a book which is utterly non notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Calypsomusic, try WP:REHASH. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   11:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is because Darkness Shines nominated half a dozen articles for deletion with the same single argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have added some more sources in the article and below, even as Darkness Shines keeps removing all the sources I added from the other book article.


 * This book contains papers published in journals or presented in academic conferences. I added below also some bits on his other Ayodhya book, as this is relevant to this article.


 * Elst's book Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim conflict (1990) was the first book published by a non-Indian on the Ayodhya debate. His opinion is that "until 1989, there was a complete consensus in all sources (Hindu, Muslim and European) which spoke out on the matter, viz. that the Babri Masjid had been built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple." He claimed that politically motivated academics have, through their grip on the media, manufactured doubts concerning this coherent and well-attested tradition. Elst alleges that the anti-Temple group in the Ayodhya conflict have committed serious breaches of academic deontology and says that the "overruling of historical evidence with a high-handed use of academic and media power" in the Ayodhya controversy was the immediate reason to involve himself in the debate.


 * K. Elst sent Goel a manuscript of his first book Ram Janmabhoomi Vs. Babri Masjid: A Case Study in Hindu Muslim Conflict. Goel was impressed with Elst's script: "I could not stop after I started reading it. I took it to Ram Swarup the same evening. He read it during the night and rang me up next morning. Koenraad Elst's book, he said, should be published immediately." In August 1990, L. K. Advani released Koenraad Elst's book about the Ayodhya conflict at a public function presided over by Girilal Jain. The book was presented to the world by L.K. Advani and Girilal Jain, together with Sita Ram Goel’s Hindu Temples, What Happened to Them, and thereby appeared on the cover of most Indian newspapers.


 * Koenraad Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate were the first publications by a western scholar on the debate, and remain the most well-known ones on the Hindu side. Very prominent politicians like L.K. Advani have cited extensively from his books on Ayodhya debate, as was reported in Indian newspapers. "The book was presented to the world by L.K. Advani and Girilal Jain, and thereby appeared on the cover of most Indian newspapers."


 * Peter Heehs in " Myth, History and Theory" calls Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate the "best-known publications" for the Hindu side. Elst also participated/published his Ayodhya research (some of it in his Ayodhya book) in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. Others who have reviewed his work on this debate are Paul Teunissen and many more.
 * Further reading:
 * a large part of his first Ayodhya book is included in Vinay Chandra Mishra and Parmanand Singh, eds.: Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid, Historical Documents, Legal Opinions & Judgments, Bar Council of India Trust, Delhi 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 09:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Ayodhya demolition: an evaluation", in Dasgupta, S., et al.: The Ayodhya Reference, q.v., p. 123-154.
 * The Ayodhya debate in Pollet, G., ed.: Indian Epic Values. Râmâyana and Its Impact. Leuven: Peeters. 1995, q.v., p. 21-42. (adapted from a paper of the International Ramayana Conference and the October 1995 Annual South Asia Conference in Madison, Wisconsin)
 * The Ayodhya debate: focus on the "no temple" evidence, World Archaeological Congress, 1998
 * Prof. Edwin Bryant notes that it is one of Elsts notable works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BKCRIT Shrikanthv (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another editor noted that this editor has an "extremely poor judgement on whats need deletion and what needs editing", as noted by other editors here and by another admin on his talkpage. He was in fact warned to stop editing in Articles for Deletion areas. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact they were asked not to nominate AfD. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * The famous author Kushwant Singh also commented on Elsts first Ayodhya book. Elst's books on the Ayodhya debate have been reviewed by professor R.N. Rao and Koenraad Elst himself has reviewed books on this topic in academic journals and published articles in journals including the Journal of Indian History and Culture about the Ayodhya debate.


 * The second Ayodhya book was reviewed by professor Ramesh Rao.


 * Indologist Gerald James Larson called the second Ayodhya book a good treatment of the Neo Hindu interpretation of the evidence.


 * The second Ayodhya book is cited in numerous publications, like Thomas Gilly's The Ethics of Terrorism, D. Anands "Hindu nationalism in India", Rebecca Frey's "Fundamentalism", Edwin Bryants "Quest for the origins of Vedic culture", and many more.


 * K. D. Sethna, also known as Amal Kiran, he praised Elst's book on Babri Masjid as "absolutely the last word".


 * review
 * Outlook India Elst on Ayodhya


 * Professor Edwin Bryant notes: Among twenty published titles, most attention has been drawn by his Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate; Gandhi and Godse (a close discussion of the apology of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse); The Saffron Swastika: The Notion of “Hindu Fascism”; and Ayodhya the Case against the Temple.


 * Ayub Kahn notes: Such is his importance in Hindutva circles that L.K.Advani quoted him at length while deposing before the Liberhans Commission investigation the demolition of Babri Masjid, says Ayub Khan.


 * “Ayodhya’s three history debates”, in Journal of Indian History and Culture (Chennai), September 2011.


 * In August 1990, L. K. Advani released Koenraad Elst's book about the Ayodhya conflict at a public function presided over by Girilal Jain.


 * RN Rao notes the second Ayodhya book is the is the best-researched, and most thorough analysis of the RSS and its affiliates, and of the "notion of Hindu 'fascism'" in a review published by CJS Wallia (Ph.D. Stanford University, teaches at Berkeley University).


 * The book also contains rebuttals of Romila Thapar, Sanjay Subramaniam, Richard Eaton, Yoginder Sikand, Amber Habib and of Mitsuhiro Kondō.


 * Note: has deleted sources I added to the book article during the deletion discussion. This includes
 * -deletion of the fact that the book was presented to the world by L.K. Advani and Girilal Jain,and thereby appeared on the cover of most Indian newspapers
 * -deletes that Peter Heehs in " Myth, History and Theory" calls Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate the "best-known publications" for the Hindu side
 * -deletes metions that some chapters were also published in journals or presented in conferences
 * - and more


 * Therefore please take care to also read the article history. It is very discouraging trying to expand these articles under deletion nomination when all my edits are removed by bogus reasons. He deleted references for example at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya:_The_Case_Against_the_Temple&curid=3137344&diff=602751368&oldid=602749893 here


 * So in summary, this book is notable because it had an important influence on Indian politics. Elsts writings on Ayodhya were quoted by home minister L.K. Advani, in the Liberhan Commission, in official political and legal publications during the Ayodhya controversy. And the very prominent politican L.K. Advani and the very prominent Girilal Jain released his first Ayodhya book at a public function. So his Ayodhya books had a huge political influence in India, it is quoted in official statments by the Home minister, for the Liberhan Commission.
 * Furthermore, the importance of his Ayodhya books was also mentioned by professor Edwin Bryant, and the work was commented on by Kushwant Singh and Peter Heehs calling them the "best-known" publications on the Hindu side. Elst was the first western writer to write on the Ayodhya debate, his writings were and still are controversial, but they were published in journals and presented in conferences, and reviewed by eminent and well-known scholars like K.D. Sethna, N.S. Rajaram. Professor Edwin Bryant noted that it is one of his notable works.

Delete per nomination. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user also deleted a source I put into one of the articles up for deletion. which was reverted by another editor because it was not appropriate. This is not impartial. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your failure to assume good faith at AfD discussions is troubling. ''' Flat Out    let's discuss it   09:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you have not been reverted that many times during these deletion discussions like me, often for bogus reasons. (like reviews and comments by Bat Ye'or, Christian Bouchet, Edwin Bryant, Michael Witzel, Hans Hock, R.N. Rao, Kushwant Singh, L.K. Advani, Girilal Jain, and many more were reverted. This makes it extremely frustrating to add sources to the article during these deletion discussions. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I made an incorrect reversion and thanked the editor who corrected it. Many of your edits that have been reverted correctly and you should use them as an opportunity to learn about reliable sources. You have only a handful of edits and seem to be taking potshots at experienced editors who have reverted you. Editing of articles never stands still just because an AfD discussion is happening. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   09:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dharma has already said that this is irrelevant for knowing if the reverts were right or not and I will show in the other Article for Deletion article more cases were these reverts were not justified. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The book doesn't even seem to pass WP:GNG. Most of the citations are from the author's other books; one simply mentions that someone felt the book should be published. I can't seem to find any evidence that this book has had a significant effect on the study of religion or politics in India. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously have not read the text above. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Calypsomusic, I did read the discussion and I still said that I think it should be deleted. Perhaps I am wrong, but there are more polite ways to express disagreement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:36, 10 April 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.