Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society


 * 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   keep. As with Articles for deletion/The Saffron Swastika, really. That the links by Redtiger provide "passing mentions" is perhaps true, strictly speaking, but if a book is mentioned as worth further reading by a number of reliable sources (not just one or two) we can assume it has notability and reliability in its field. Let me add that the creator of this and other articles is their own worst enemy, and given their rather astonishing inability to follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV, they should be sending flowers and chocolates to Redtigerxyz pronto. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep satisfies criterion 1. Not only it is referred to as an important book on the subject, , but is also used as reference in many books. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it fails on 1, neither of those sources give any coverage, just a single mention. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And neither of those sources actually say that this is an important book on the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redriect to the author as unreferenced. Neither the article nor the links above contain anything that looks like in depth coverage to me. Name dropping is not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:20, 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 for failing to meet WP:BKCRIT. Iniciativass (talk) 18:02, 3 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. 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.


 * 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.


 * The book was reviewed by professor Ramesh Rao.


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


 * The 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.


 * Ayub Khan says that Koenraad Elst is the most prominent advocate of Sangh Parivar in the West. He further says: "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."


 * In August 1990, L. K. Advani released Koenraad Elst's book about the Ayodhya conflict at a public function presided over by Girilal Jain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 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


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BKCRIT Shrikanthv (talk) 10:42, 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 admins on his talkpage and on other talkpages. --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Prof. Edwin Bryant notes that the third Ayodhya book is one of Elsts notable works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A brief look reveals that this article is the same as the other articles created on books by the same author in the past month or so. All of them contain a smattering of OR mixed with lots of citations from the authors own works to feign notability of a large amount of his books, not a single one of them notable for having made lasting impacts within the fields of Indian politics and religion. This, like the others, doesn't even pass WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * * Question Again, what do you mean by "the other articles created on books by the same author in the past month or so"? This article has been around since 19 March 2006‎, and it appears the same is true of the other articles (around since 2005 or so). You're leaving comments on all the deletion discussions claiming that the articles are recent, which is puzzling. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * *Keep : Notable book for the Ayodhya and babri masjid issues. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly what results prove any notability at all? I have seen none presented here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was talking about those 4,000 - 5,000 results of google books. I know, that many of them would be reprint, but still, 100s -1000s. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per users above. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please make sure to also read the article history, as the person who nominated this article for deletion has also removed references and sources from the 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
 * -removed the fact that professor Edwin Bryant notes in an "Oxford University Press" publication that it is one of Elst's notable works
 * -deleted the fact that the famous author Kushwant Singh also commented on the book
 * -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 mentions of reviews of his work by Paul Teunissen, R.N. Rao, and of citations in papers
 * -deletes metions that some chapters were also published in journals or presented in conferences
 * - and more

It is very frustating and discouraging trying to expand these articles under deletion nomination when all my edits are removed for invalid reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya_and_After:_Issues_Before_Hindu_Society&curid=4443823&diff=602751962&oldid=602749582 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya_and_After:_Issues_Before_Hindu_Society&curid=4443823&diff=602752039&oldid=602751962 here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * 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.