Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam


 * 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. "Keep" voters do not provide valid arguments and/or reliable sources that establish notability. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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 criticism of Islam from an Indian viewpoint, of which this one is one of the most prominent, are often discussed by professors, scholars, critics. Elst also participated/published his 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."  --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC) — Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per nom. Nothing noteworthy. Seems like a series of promotion for several books by the same author.Iniciativass (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it promotional? If so, you are free to edit it and remove WP:PEACOCK terms that make it promotional. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep-many hindus are islamophobic and dont want to anger muslims by publishing the true records of their bloody history in India,muslims are lapping it up well. This article needs to be keept as it confirms to highest standards of scholarship ,just to appease some religious groups History should not be white washed. Rim sim (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it "confirms to highest standards of scholarship" as you claim, then where are the academic sources which discuss this in detail? Your vote is a tad biased I think. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As i said before many historians in India fear muslims,they will even white wash 9/11, so will you delete all the information written about 9/11 and osama, this article was based on a book written by a western man, he has written the truth ,if muslims find it guilty there's no time machine to go and change prophet mohammed's views on kaffirs. Rim sim (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked you for sources to back your claims of "confirms to highest standards of scholarship", not another islamophobic rant. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Rim sim (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:INDENT, so you have no sources to back your claim that this book "confirms to highest standards of scholarship", how unsurprising. I would recommend you remove your personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * what are the books that "confirms to highest standards of scholarship" regarding islamic quran and hadiths,this book is written by a scholar what else does one need ,i don't understand. Rim sim (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, read WP:INDENT. There are thousands of academic sources which discuss the Koran in detail, there are none which discuss this one. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't seem to locate any mainstream reviews of this thing, nor any news about the book. It fails WP:GNG as it doesn't seem to have made any impact within the field of religious studies or political science. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete 43 known holdings in WorldCat, which means it's unlikely the book got much traction in academic circles. Times of India has a few instances of comment spam that mention the book, but nothing beyond that.  Given that this is a marginal writer working with a fringe publisher, I'm not surprised at the absence of reliable sources to establish notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:11, 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. But a quick search shows that it has been cited in various other books and papers (like the book by Bat Ye'or), and there were some reviews like the critical review by Amber Habib.--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this book wasn't as important like his other books were. So if it is going to be deleted, there should be no problem, or if it is going to remain then still, article may need some improvement. Fundarise (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — Fundarise (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Other stuff existing is no reason to keep.  Mini  apolis  22:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Duplicate !vote.  Mini  apolis  13:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)) Keep Comment This page just gives one information about a book that was written about dark chapters in History of India which muslims are not comfortable with since it records their acts with earnest without any compromise, i hope the administrator takes a serious look at these delete requests which are made by Muslims and their apologists and keep this page alive for future generations to know about a book that is critical about history. Rim sim (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The book was reviewed critically by Amber Habib. The famous author Bat Ye'or writes in her book "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide": The contemporary historical negationism in India, with the collusion of Hindu politicians, is discussed in detail by Koenraad Elst in his book on this subject.  CJS Wallia (University of Berkeley) writes: Like Konraad Elst’s Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, Francois Gautier’s Rewriting Indian History contributes to the growing literature of dissent against the “standard” textbooks of India’s history. The book was well received among some writers and journalists, Francois Gautier discussed it at length and called it a very interesting book in his 1996 book on Indian history. (Rewriting Indian history by Gautier) --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: has deleted sources I added to the book articles during the deletion discussion. Second Note: They were in the other book articles, not (yet) in this one. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you on about? I have not deleted anything from the article, I have two edits to it, a PROD and then the nomination for deletion. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I said to the book articles, maybe not (yet) this one. It is very discouraging trying to expand these articles under deletion nomination when all my edits are removed by bogus reasons. You deleted a lot of valid material for bogus reasons, as I mentioned above. You could maybe wait after the deletion discussion before removing valid material. You deleted references https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Saffron_Swastika&curid=3137535&diff=602742556&oldid=602732915 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Saffron_Swastika&curid=3137535&diff=602742706&oldid=602742556 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Saffron_Swastika&curid=3137535&diff=602743014&oldid=602742706 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Saffron_Swastika&curid=3137535&diff=602744262&oldid=602743014 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Saffron_Swastika&curid=3137535&diff=602745355&oldid=602744262 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya:_The_Case_Against_the_Temple&curid=3137344&diff=602751368&oldid=602749893 here 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Saffron_Swastika&curid=3137535&diff=602863933&oldid=602863354 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Saffron_Swastika&curid=3137535&diff=602864111&oldid=602863987 here --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I do on other article have no place in this discussion, you made a false accusation, strike it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Even though Darkness Shines has collapsed the above section, he is removing references from the article. One was maybe a copyvio, so I fixed that. The other was a blog that reprinted the book review, which should be fine, as the book review was originally years ago published on a book review website which is now defunct. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: He is also deleting to the Bat Ye'or book. The reference is the cited book itself, so it does not need a citation. Stop removing valid references for bogus reasons. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Please also check the article history - as many references are being deleted by Darkness Shines from the article during the deletion discussion. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear to be misrepresenting sources, you say that Gautier discusses this book, and devotes a chapter to it, which chapter would that be? As I have this book and the only mention of Elsts works is "Historian Konraad Elst, in his book "Negationism in India", quotes Professor K.S. Lal" on page 22. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand the book is online, in the link that I removed after your copyvio notice (am I allowed to post the link here?). It is chapter 5. 5. NEGATIONISM AND THE MUSLIM CONQUESTS

It begins like this: It is important to stop a moment and have a look at what the Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst, has called "negationism in India". In his foreword to the book of the same title, Koenraad explains that negationism, which means in this context "the denial of historical crimes against humanity", is not a new phenomenon. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No you cannot put linkvios anywhere. Gautier does not actually devote a chapter to Elsts work then? He just uses Elsts definition of negationisim? Will double check for you, I am guessing you may have read it wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Famous author N.S. Rajaram says that the book is "well-known". --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you know? That is not a reliable source at all, that could be anyone named N.S. Rajaram, or the owner of the SPS pretending to be. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:COMMONSENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Calypsomusic. I do think the article needs a few minor improvements, but it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Yambaram (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Per users above. [redacted] It's a pile of shit that is totally, totally NOT NOTABLE. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Such comments are usually ignored. Elst is heavily accepted in academia. You have obviously got no idea about him. Better if you do some research before making these useless comments, also learn the definition of Fascism. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NarSakSasLee: We have many articles on books written by fascists whose views aren't accepted in academia (Mein Kampf is only the most prominent example).  We have articles on books that are piles of shit (say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and even books that are about piles of shit (Everyone Poops).  Notability is, at root, a measure of independent third parties noting a particular work.  Excretable books (in both senses) that are widely condemned are guaranteed to meet our guidelines for notability.  This may be a terrible book by a terrible person, but the article is at AfD because it was more or less ignored in the wider world.  Please take a look at WP:NBOOK.  The criteria are pretty straightforward.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because of such editors on wikipedia, this article is now (again) at the BLP noticeboard. Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NOT WP:NOTABLE. Not scholarly. Not cited by anyone except bloggers and other lunatics. Totally pseudo-scientific. Still a pile of shit. If anything it belongs on Elsts own article. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More WP:IDONTLIKEIT nonsense, You haven't read the policy that you are referring. Just stop misusing the words and links you don't know about. There's nothing related to science in the book, so how it can be 'pseudo scientific'? Read WP:NPA. You cannot make personal attacks about anything in wikipedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's because his claims are trying to be scientific? He claims that 100 million Hindus have died in some mythical holocaust, whilst real scholars such as Simon Digby of Cambridge University have proven his claims are utter shit. If you that much in love with the author not to see this then you have proven yourself incompetent and unintelligble, and also ignorant. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't compare if superman is better or batman is. Why there is any need to? Simon Digby never even referred to Elst in his books. Where did Elst claims in that book, that "100 million hindus died".. See you are only making up nonsense as usual for pushing your useless pov. I think it will prove enough that who's incompetent, ignorant, and also incapable, but for now we can agree that only you are, because there is no word like 'unintelligble' in English, better if you learn english before coming back with same nonsense. Read NOTBATTLEFIELD D4iNa4 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * strong Keep Comment: all references are being deleted by Darkness Shines from the article during the deletion discussion, also all the works of this author are targeted and any article that is critical about islamic fundamentalism is being vandalized. i hope the Administrator acts wisely and take the right decision. Rim sim (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop repeatedly !voting.  Mini  apolis  18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * keep : Book has been also referred by Daniel Pipes. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * D4iNa4 Where?  Was this a review or a passing mention?  If you were thinking about this link], that's a reader's comment on Pipes' blog.  If you've found a review, please let us know where it is.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be right, I must have confused with the postscript, that was reviewed by Daniel Pipes. But this book has been referred by Bernard Shapiro, in "The Battle For Eretz Yisrael Jews, G-d and Israel..." D4iNa4 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * D4iNa4, thanks. Looking at the book (here), I'm just seeing one mention of Negationism (p. 45).  What we're looking for is reviews or some other in-depth discussion of the work in what we call a "reliable source" (newspapers, books and magazines are (mostly) fine, blogs and personal websites (mostly) aren't).  If you could track down that kind of review, that would be great!  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Passing mentions are also enough sometimes, but like other user noted, there are reviews about this book. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Those reviews that were mentioned above already are all long. It would not be surprising if Daniel Pipes had also commented on the book, as Elst was the co-author of one of Daniel Pipes books.
 * The well known author Francois Gautier elaborates on the book in a whole chapter of his book.
 * Which book? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This one (fifth chapter): Rewriting Indian History François Gautier India Research, 2003 ISBN 8187943270, 9788187943273
 * Based on what I'm seeing in google books, this is another passing mention. If you have a copy of the book and wouldn't mind quoting a couple of relevant paragraphs, I'd appreciate it.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No its not. Darkness shines told me not to paste the link because of copyvio, but you can find the book online. It is chapter 5. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, found it. Two passing mentions.  The first paragraph discusses the forward of Negationism.  The eighth paragraph contains a single quote.  The rest of the chapter is what Gautier thinks of negationism, not what Elst thinks.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I count more than than that. The problem might be that there are different versions or books that show up on google, which is also confusing me. The text on saveindia.com mentions Elst six times in the chapter, the one at aboutindia.asia mentions him seven times and has this footnote: * For more details, read “Negationism in India, concealing the record of Islam”, by Koenraad Elst, Voice of India, New Delhi.--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I found one more review by A. Gosh, the author of books on Islam. Because this was a dozen years ago, the website I found is not up to date. (This is  same review, but has a very long discussion) Another writer comments on this review here   --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The first two links are broken. The third is to an article at iviews.com.  The article contains only a passing mention of the book.  I'll reproduce it here:
 * "The Hindutva scholars are joined by foreign scholars such as Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier. Elsts's work Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam and Francois Gautier's Rewriting Indian History is part of the growing literature attacking Indian history textbooks. Their version of history portrays Muslims as having contributed nothing to India other than death, destruction and subjugation."
 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the link I pasted just above?--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The iviews links says: "For instance, in a glowing review of Elst's work Negationism in India, A. Ghosh writes that the view advocated by many Indian historians, including the Marxist M. N. Roy, that Islam was welcomed into India because it brought equality and respect to lower classes, is based on an incorrect picture of the caste system. "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I could have been a little more clear there.
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20050309211710/ gets me to a page that says "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."
 * http://swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/bookstore/bookrev/niictroi.html redirects to swordoftruth.com, which (as a domain name) is currently for sale.
 * The quote you provided tells me about what Ghosh thinks, not about what's in Negationism. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The other link shows that Faisal_Kutty comments on this review. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The link is http://web.archive.org/web/20050309211710/http://swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/bookstore/bookrev/niictroi.html
 * Keep of course. Very interesting subject. referred to by well-known authors, passes notability. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Lokalkosmopolit: Unfortunately, WP:NBOOK doesn't mention how interesting the subject is, or how often it's name-dropped.  If you can point us to "multiple, non-trivial published works", then that would go a long way towards establishing notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, well known author N.S. Rajaram says in a book review on one of Elsts other books: "At the same time, this takes nothing away from Elst's earlier work on Ayodhya and negationism. They remain valid and valuable." He means of course with negationism this book. review was originally published in the Pioneer Pioneer, 18 March 2007 --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a passing mention in a copypasted review of a completely different book.
 * "Elst's Asterik... is supposed to be an updated version of his earlier Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate."
 * I'm getting the sense that you're not reading these sources before you post them here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC
 * Sorry for not being clear. I said N.S. Rajaram says in a book review on one of Elsts other books.
 * Anyway, this book has been the subject of multiple reviews (Amber Habib, Arvind Ghosh, Francois Gautier), and therefore passes the notablitiy criteria which are rules of thumb anyway. It also had an influence on writers and on the debate on this topic. As per the nutshell of WP:N, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not [part of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT]. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Habib's review is not a reliable source. Per, , , the review was posted  to Habib's geocities website.  I have found no evidence that it was ever republished by a third-party source.  (I have also not be able to locate the text of the review.)
 * Amber Habib is the son of famous historian Habib, who is also discussed extensively in Elsts book. His website was at http://www.geocities.ws/a_habib/India/oldindia.html, please take a look. This looks like a well developed website. There were many well developed websites at geocities and this is one of them. What matters if he made the website on geocities or on his own domain? The text of the review is at http://archive.is/LpWSF. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition Elst has written a reply to that review in another of his books, so this could also be used in the article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gautier's work contains only passing mentions of Negationism. Chapter 5 of "Rewriting Indian History" contains one paragraph that summarizes the forward of Negationism and one quote later in the chapter.
 * Why are you repeating again your claim, when I replied to it above already??? : I count more than than that. The problem might be that there are different versions or books that show up on google, which is also confusing me. The text on saveindia.com mentions Elst six times in the chapter, the one at aboutindia.asia mentions him seven times and has this footnote: * For more details, read “Negationism in India, concealing the record of Islam”, by Koenraad Elst, Voice of India, New Delhi.--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read the chapter, and it is clearly much more than a passing mention. Summary or review of Elsts' book in one chapter of Gautiers book (with some elaborations maybe) would be more appropriate. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ghosh's review, isn't. Ghosh wrote an essay for a now-defunct outfit called Sword of Truth . While this essay is labelled as a review, it mentions neither the book nor the author.
 * I also replied that Faisal_Kutty commented on the Arvind Ghosh review: "For instance, in a glowing review of Elst's work Negationism in India, A. Ghosh writes that the view advocated by many Indian historians, including the Marxist M. N. Roy, that Islam was welcomed into India because it brought equality and respect to lower classes, is based on an incorrect picture of the caste system. " It seems that  Faisal Kutty disagrees with you. Maybe it is not the full text of the review that is online?
 * In conclusion: Elst is very much on the fringe of Indian historical studies, and while he's well known in these circles (and certainly notable as an author), his several books rework the same basic themes for the same narrow, self-selected audience.  These are not the kind of books that are going to attract the attention of outside reviewers, and it's not surprising that they haven't.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, also it is not the same basic or narrow themes, he has written on a lot of different themes, and his work was reviewed and discussed by professors like Harvard professors and such. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:36, 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.