Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate


 * 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   redirect to Koenraad Elst. Redirect given the non-trivial hits found by User:Tokyogirl79. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate

 * – ( 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) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am finding some mention of it in some history books as a reference and example of its type of book, so hopefully I can find something to justify a keep. If not, then it should probably be redirected to the author's page. Maybe sources exist in another language?  Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:14, 3 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:
 * The book is arguably the most well known and most cited publication on the Aryan Invasion controversy on the Hindu side. There are enough sources to show this as notable, which you could have found out by yourself easily enough (google). His book and his views on the Aryan invasion debate were reviewed and discussed by Harvard professors and many other professors, including Michael Witzel, George Cardona, Edwin Bryant, Hans Hock, and many more. Some sources were cited above by Tokyo Girl, but there are many more. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is no issue with stubs as long as they denote notability.Rather than pasting the same comments in Afd, if you have reliable sources that will get the article across the line in terms of the criteria at WP:NBOOK then add them to the article. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   23:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Unlike many proponents of the Out-of-India theory, Elst maintains the validity of the comparative-linguistics approach, which sets him apart from other proponents like Georg Feuerstein in his book In Search of the Cradle of Civilization.


 * The book and his views on the Aryan invasion debate were discussed by Harvard professor Michael Witzel and other professores, including George Cardona, Edwin Bryant , Hans Hock.

“invasion.” However, immigration/trickling in and acculturation obviously are entirely different from a (military) invasion, or from overpowering and/or eradicating the local population."
 * Witzel also argued: "Elst disingeneously insists on calling any migration or even a “trickling in” an

Comment: Like in other articles that  nominated for deletion, he has also blanked sources I added during this deletion discussion. Please make sure to read the article history to also see what  deleted. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean all this crap? Which you copied and pasted from another article, and has nothing at all to do with the book? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why has it nothing to do with the book? The first and most important part were such showing that the book is discussed in books of the Aryan Invasion debate. Why did you delete that part? The second part is about one controversy that started from Elst's research in this book. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read WP:NOR, as that is what you appear to be engaging in here. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)



Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete First of all, the book is only mentioned in passing and so it actually fails the general notability guideline, in addition to the specific guideline on books. Second, there is an odd trend of what seems like OR here to promote otherwise non-notable books by the same author, and a number of bunk articles of this nature related to this book's author and his topic area have popped up in the past month. It seems like an awfully suspicious fan-page type of push. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Question What are the articles that "have popped up in the past month"? This article has been around since 7 July 2005. You can give valid reasons to delete, but to claim (in multiple deletion discussions) that articles were created in the last month seems disingenuous (unless of course it's just a mistake). Shreevatsa (talk) 15:41, 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.