Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decolonizing the Hindu Mind


 * 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 reliable sources indicate that this is a notable book by our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Decolonizing the Hindu Mind

 * – ( 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 Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 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:
 * Elsts books on Hindu revivalism, of which this one is one of the most prominent, are often discussed by professors, scholars, critics. Elst also participated/published his Hindu revivalism research in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books (for example by professors Arvind Sharma, Edwin Bryant & Laurie Patton,Herman Siemens & Vasti Roodt,Hans Geybels & Walter Van Herck, Angela Marcantonio & Girish Nath Jha, and more)and bestellers (Daniel Pipes book), and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. He is widely seen as the main or one of the main propenents "sympathetic" to the "Hindu side", for example by critical scholars like Meera Nanda or also by many Hindu authors. His books have been reviewed and discussed by Harvard professors, other professors, leading scholars and journalists (Sanjay Subramaniam, Meera Nanda....). What more can one ask? Some of his books have been translated into other languages. Elst says, "I have crossed swords with Mira Kamdar, Christophe Jaffrelot, Meera Nanda, Amber Habib, MF Husain as well as his critics, DN Jha, Harbans Mukhia, Wiliam Dalrymple, Edward Said, Ramachandra Guha, Ashish Nandy, Edward Luce, Vikas Swarup, Martha Nussbaum etc. The record shows that I have not limited myself to the gullible and the already-converted."


 * Of course many papers cite the book, but this one cites the book 5 times A World of Passions: How to Think About Globalization Now Jedediah Purdy Duke Law School --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The book is certainly notable, with a noteworthy author,and it was a besteller for Rupa publications (a major publishing house).
 * Some quotes:
 * "The book version of most of his Ph.D. thesis, defended in 1998. A very thorough treatment of the Hindu movement since before its official genesis in the 1920s and until the very end of the 1990s. Unlike other Westerners, he has been able to get a real inside look in the Hindu movement. Even rarer, he has been able to shed the usual bias that dooms this line of research to a very jaundiced view and to laughter among future generations. He shows how “nationalism is a misstatement of Hindu concerns”."
 * "In 2001, Rupa published the bulky book version of my PhD thesis, and reported to me that it became a bestseller. It is not the usual RSS self-praise but not the usual RSS-bashing of the "experts" either" --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC) — Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete as nothing noteworthy. References are self-published and unreliable. Iniciativass (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete ~50 holdings per Worldcat. Not finding any reviews in reliable sources.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Worldcat is not reliable at all for India, even extremely well known books show only 1 or 2 results in India.--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The book was reviewed by well known authors, by N.S. Rajaram and by Ayub Khan in the monthly magazine Communalism Combat  and also at.
 * It was a best-seller at Rupa & Co.
 * It contains main parts of his Ph.D. thesis at a well known university.
 * Professor Edwin Bryant notes: "His PhD dissertation on Hindu nationalism, Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, became a best-seller in India".
 * Summary: This book is clearly notable, it was a best-seller at a major publishing house, was reviewed both favourably and very critically by well-known critics, and is based on the main parts of his Ph.D. thesis at a major university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The N. S. Rajaram review is self-published; the Khan review is in a blog. Actual best-sellers generate newspaper and magazine reviews.  Absent that kind of coverage, we can't establish notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The reviews are clearly not self-published, as you could have found out yourself, the Ayub Khan review was published in the monthly magazine Combat Communalism, while N.S. Rajaram, a well-known author, published it in the Naimisha Journal (and likely there are also reviews elsewwhere, remember, this was over 10 years ago, when the Internet looked much different than today).
 * But there will always be editors who have a problem with the views of a controversial book or author, no matter which source is used. You are in fact indirectly calling him a fascist on this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam which is a very serious BLP violation. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cites? As in volume, number, page and date?  I'd love to be shown wrong here.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In additon, there is also this reference about the book in Hinduism Today: Hindu Studies: Warring with Words. Elst, Koenraad Hinduism Today, Jul 01, 2009; Vol. 31, No. 3, p. 53-57. I don't have access to the journal but saw the reference here http://encore.library.cofc.edu/iii/encore/search/C__Skashmir+%C5%9Baivism__Orightresult/SdoArticles?lang=eng&suite=pearl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Putting the title into google brings it right up. It's a excerpt from the book. No help for notability, I'm afraid.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Hinduism Today also has some comments on the book:
 * Scholarly Tomes
 * India's major social movements, such as the RSS and its political action group, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and related organizations, deliver a unique expression of Hindutva. Dr. Koenraad Elst's presentation, Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism (657 pages, Rupa & Co. Publishers, Rs. 595) details the 1988-1998 period when "mass campaigns and electoral victories brought Hindu revivalist leaders to the front pages worldwide. The presence of the BJP in Parliament is an eloquent indicator of this stormy evolution. It had few allies in 1996 and a great many in 1998." If you want to understand the modern evolution of Hindutva, this is the book for you.
 * Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism by Dr. Koenraad Elst, Rupa & Co. 7/16 Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi 110 002 India. https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?com_mode=thread&com_order=0&itemid=4110


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is part of a string of recent articles of books by the same author within the same field and with the same unsatisfactory level of notability. It just doesn't quite make it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This link shows that the discussion around this book is still ongoing in 2014, years after publication. http://centreright.in/2014/01/decolonizing-the-indian-mind/#.U0gBDFdEmbG --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Book review : http://www.sandeepweb.com/2006/11/06/book-review-decolonizing-the-hindu-mind/ --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:05, 11 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.