Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddha is not an Avtar of vishnu


 * 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 "Buddha is not an Avtar of vishnu" is not an article. Krimpet (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddha is not an Avtar of vishnu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Entirely original research with no salvage value. deeptrivia (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as possible (subtle) attack page. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteSome of the references cite the wikipedia article Buddha from the Hindu perspective.--Banana 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Buddha from the Hindu perspective; some the arguments may be worth mentioning Robin S 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On the author's talk page, they wrote ". . .But I just found another article saying buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. So I'm writing in reaction to it." This looks like part of a bigger dispute. --Banana 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That doesn't automatically make all of the presented arguments worthless. Robin S 02:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, as it doesn't seem to be intended to inform but rather support one side of an argument. I'd say that some of the points are salvagable and could be used in Buddha from the Hindu perspective, but for the most part it does seem to be a subtle attack.  b w o w e n  T / C  03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR essay, with numerous spelling and grammatical errors added on as a bonus. Lankiveil 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. I am surprised that Annitya0, without seeking others' opinion, moved Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu to Buddha from the Hindu perspective. And the current article's title automatically suggests some conclusion without discussion. The previous move should be undone, and of course appropriate material from this article can be included in that article. --Knverma 05:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; inherently POV title, POV essay. *** Crotalus *** 06:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. BTLizard 08:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Crotalus - no hope of being neutral. Merge salvageable content into Buddha from the Hindu perspective, which, in my opinion, was a good move. – Riana ⁂  10:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom, WP:OR, no sources, and WP:SOAP. Also, don't merge the content either. It's likely to never be verified, and the page is opinional anyways.  Cool Blue  talk to me 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopelessly partisan (and misspelled) title. Article consists of religious claims stated as a fact. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete POV essay. Some information could be merge into Buddha from the Hindu perspective. --Dezidor 14:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect Several parts of the article are taken from Buddha from the Hindu perspective, where this content could be merged into a new section Refutations against belief of Buddha being an avatar or Arguments against Buddha being an avatar or whichever heading is most appropriate. In a stand-alone article, it is terribly POV, but within Buddha from the Hindu perspective it could be a useful addition. xC | ☎  19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you "refute a belief"? We can have a section on why some (notable) people believe Buddha is not an avatar, but I am afraid that hardly any arguments from this article qualify to be retained for that section because much of this article is factually incorrect. deeptrivia (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that, however much nonbelievers in a faith may disagree, believers will often claim that they have logical reasons to believe the claims that their religion makes. Some of the arguments presented here may be widely held by Buddhists to logically refute Hindu belief in Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. In this case, they would qualify as notable. Robin S 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Hopelessly original research essay, soapbox case. WP:OR & WP:SOAP.  A good example of What Wikipedia is not.  --Wingsandsword 21:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research & soapbox. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no third-party sources to back the author's claims.  *Cremepuff 222*  23:36, 19 May 2007 (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.