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

Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam

Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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: [1]

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)

• well dear darkness shines u must be shining in islam, deleting just about every article that's critical of what ur bretheren have done(mass murdering kaffirs), the author of this book is far more qualified then mohammed,u should apply the same logic to mohammed's quran and get it deleted ,i hope your Hinduphobia or Aryanphobia rant gets stopped. Rim sim (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)