Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The Delete views based on the argument that only one review exists were discounted once multiple additional reviews were found, with plenty of time for all participants to assess the sources. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India,  and United States of America.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. The coverage in the Kansas City Star and The Historian, as well as from other authors, makes it notable. Critical coverage is still coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NBOOK does not require sustained coverage for a book to be notable, so the comment about "20-year-old sources" is not relevant. The comment about "garbage books" is also not relevant according to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: It passes NBOOK and is therefore notable. The reviews seem to adequately address the book's fringe claims. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How does it pass WP:NBOOK? Ignore the misleading claim above that there is coverage from "Kansas City Star" because it simply not verifiable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ArvindPalaskar On proquest, there are:
 * review in Choice, proquest id 225800157
 * a review in Free Inquiry, proquest id 230077014
 * Above NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also a review in The Humanist, proquest ID 235297768. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've verified that the reviews in Choice and Free Inquiry exist. Those two reviews, plus the existing sources in the article, are enough to more than meet the NBOOK threshold. Astaire (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete At best we have only 1 review that meets WP:V. I agree that special care should be taken over a fringe subject but even without that this book easily fails all points of WP:NBOOK. Azuredivay (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * delete, one review doesn't prove notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, that's why we've found at least 6 below that prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Indeed there is only 1 review and that too only tells why this book is faulty. NavjotSR (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Notability (books) says: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Sources   The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”" The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."   The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."   The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."   The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""  <li> The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention." </li> <li> The review notes: "The mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma. (Mahatma means large minded)." </li> <li>Less significant coverage:<ol> <li> The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause" </li> <li></li> The review notes: "The book written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of Gandhi, challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent, and pacifistic leader of Indian independence. It is told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. ... The book has been criticised for it’s one-sided approach and sweeping statements." </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 20:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Related AfDs: Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple reliable and in-depth published reviews (possibly as many as six) is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - They are not really "reviews". The book absolutely does not meet WP:NBOOK, let alone WP:GNG. There is a big difference between advertorials and reviews. The sources mentioned  above are either advertorials or fact-check.  Orientls (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How are they not reviews/commentary? It doesn't matter if they're strictly delineated "reviews", provided they are significant coverage on the book. There is no evidence they are advertisements and fact-checking a book in a commentary manner would be significant coverage, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at them they are reviews. Why wouldn't they be? What do you consider a review? This is very far over both NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: Book review cited in the article and this, should be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of reviews from the relevant academics make it an easy case for deletion. Capitals00 (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither Notability (books) nor Notability require "reviews from the relevant academics". Cunard (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Coverage from academics... isn't a notability criterion..... PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.