Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 12:08, 24 March 2023

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 no consensus to delete, but tag for cleanup. I would like to note that while it is true deletion is a poor substitute for cleanup, arguing an article can be improved is no substitute for actually improving it. This article can only be kept so many times under the pretense that it has potential - there do come times when a chronically problematic article is best served by starting from scratch. Therefore I offer the following - to those who say it would be easiest to delete and start over, I suggest that a wholesale rewrite does not require literal deletion of the existing version. To those saying it should be kept because it is salvageable, please salvage it. Eventually folks are going to get tired of seeing this reappear time and time again and it'll eventually be deleted by default. Shereth 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and Christianity

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buddhist-Christian parallels

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christianity and Buddhism

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on Christianity

Buddhism and Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a hopeless mess of original research and fringe theories. No information is better than wrong information. I suggest deleting and then starting from scratch. Jehochman 10:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and start from scratch. Per nom. Jehochman 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You nominated it, so you do not need to also "vote" for deletion. Edison (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I am entitled to comment however I like. Jehochman 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree, Delete and start from scratch. I was considering attempting to rescue this article but I can't see how it could be done.Coffeeassured (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and start from scratch It just needs to be deleted and then restarted. --Meldshal42 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep I don't want to see a snowball delete of what appears to be a good topic, if not a good article. If deleted, I endorse the "start from scratch" idea. I've saved it on my computer, and hope that the author(s) will have that opportunity before a deletion takes place. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep First off, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it is wrong. There are many books and research out there about the connection between Buddhism and Christianity. It is not original research, in fact the article itself is filled with references. It is also not a fringe theory, many people believe in this theory which is supported in the article with all the references. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - due to WP:OR and WP:SYN. --T-rex 14:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on Christianity which was the former name of this article. There are some good arguments why this article should be kept there. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If a topic is encyclopedic and notable, there is no established practice or guideline in the English language Misplaced Pages for deleting it so that in the future someone can create an improved version. That proposal seems more like a way of getting rid of an article which is upsetting. If it has problems, fix it. In the previous AFD, which resulkted in Keep, I said "Strong Keep This well referenced article about a notable topic has twice been placed up for deletion and twice the attempt to remove it failed. Scholars were discussing this since the late 19th century. The content has been the subject of aan ongoing edit war. Editing is preferable to deletion, and the argument that we have to delete it and start creating it again is completely nonsensical. Just keep the good parts and delete the unreferenced or POV or OR parts. There is a long scholarly history of comparative religion, taught at major universities, comparing the doctrines and beliefs of Christianity with those of Buddhism. This is an important and encyclopedic topic, but the article is obviously undergoing a polemic edit war. Those who have studied comparative religion should take a look at the article and use Misplaced Pages edit policies, and perhaps RFC to straighten out any POV edit warring going on under control using the tools available. Disruptive editors can be controlled via RFC and blocking if necessary." Edison (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note The nominator failed to mention that this article has previously been nominated for deletion three times:* October 25, 2006, when titled Buddhist-Christian parallels. Result Keep. January 8, 2007 when the title was Christianity and Buddhism. Result No consensus. July 10, 2007, when the title was Buddhist influences on Christianity. Result Keep and the closing admin, Daniel Case noted "As the keep votes note, the topic is eminently worthy of encyclopedic attention and we have never AFAICR deleted an article just to rebuild it. In its present form, it is beginning to show a lot of promise and might well, once the major cleanup is done and it is fully sourced, be a good candidate for GA status. I do implore the keep voters to continue working on the article, though." Edison (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus can change. This article was heavily edited by User:PHG shortly after the last AfD. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance for the reasons behind my concerns.Jehochman 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Clearly, a great deal of time and effort went into creating this article. Its main sin is a lack of focus. It needs a good, solid rewrite -- I don't see how Misplaced Pages benefits from having it deleted. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a really challenging topic to gather and summarize sources on, let alone stylize. Reading through the article, I don't see any WP:OR or WP:FRINGE, because to several editor's credit, each section of the article includes a whole spectrum of well-referenced statements. Clicking on section 2--Buddhism and Christianity#Christian awareness of Buddhism, one discovers the referenced quote from the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004) that "speculation concerning the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes, the early Christians, and the gospels is without historical foundation." Clicking on section 4--Buddhism and Christianity#Buddhist influence, one discovers another well-referenced section with the sourced quote from Jerry H. Bentley that "the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity". Bentley observes that scholars "have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus." So in terms of WP:5P, I see the article meeting the basic standard for both our blue Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and green Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view standard pilliars. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Firefly noted refs in the article which deny a historical foundation for saying Buddhism influenced Christianity. If that is a well supported conclusion, then it would provide a negative answer to scholarly discussion in the late 19th century about possible influences. We should absolutely not be in the position here of voting as to whether we think Christianity was devinely inspired or whether Christian views owed something to pre-existing Buddhist views. The point is whether this has been a notable topic, with scholarly references in books, refereed journals and encyclopedias. If scholars over 100 years ago wrote about parallels between Christianity and Buddhism, then it cannot be original research to include it in Misplaced Pages. Edison (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I completely agree with Edison's comment. My intention was merely to highlight the range of sourced views in the article. I tried to get one from each side of the spectrum to show that the article is balanced. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

KEEP- Reading this page has convinced me that there is an wreckless attempt to bury critical thinking as I cannot find one valid reason to scratch the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.90.80 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is biases towards Christianity, for instance, one chapter is named only "Buddhist influence" in which several well respected scholars state that Christianity has been influenced by Buddhism, yet, several chapters down we find the chapter that begins, "Christian influence on Buddhism" which does not give any possible explination for what Christianities influence on Buddhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.90.80 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notable, sourcable and sourced. Throw this AfD out and block future ones. This is a waste of everyone's time, and, potentially-- eventually, some seem to hope-- a loss of a lot of perfectly good information at Misplaced Pages. Dekkappai (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Then read Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. User:PHG was a main author of the presently discussed article. It has been established that PHG had, perhaps inadvertently, cherry picked sources, misrepresented sources, and inserted original research into Misplaced Pages. This article appears to need very thorough cleaning up, but it is nearly impossible to know what is good and what is bad. I felt that blanking and restarting would be faster than trying to check and patch every fact. Jehochman 21:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - as someone who watched from the sidelines during that arbitration case, I would like to support Jehochman here in his concerns. His nomination is a good-faith effort to address potential problems with this article. Sometimes, just as for copyvios, you do have to start from scratch if there are deeply embedded problems. I would, however, like to see some actual problems pointed out, not just hypothetical ones. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • When it has been established that an editor has engaged in a systematic pattern of misrepresenting sources, and we see here the same pattern of "Eastern thought lead/influenced Western thought" on a topic that is covered by same editor's topic ban, I believe the assumption flip flops. Note that the editor in question uses obscure resources that are not available at my local library. I am challenging the validity of the facts in this article. Those facts which cannot be verified should be removed. I believe the burden in this case must fall on those who claim that facts are accurate because Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance has created a presumption of unverifiability for this particular editor, writing on this topic, at the time the writing occurred. Jehochman 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment If User:Jehochman knew of this issue, why wasn't it stated up front in nomination argument (which as written is miserable in doing the article justice)? Moreoever, why did User:Jehochman as the nominator add a !vote? Such a stilted AfD argument, an unnecessary !vote, and then later on bringing up this PHG issue pushes this process towards that of a kangaroo court, i'm afraid. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • AfDs are dynamic, and opinions change during the course of the discussion, though I agree Jehochman should have raised this issue up front. When I first saw the article my immediate reaction was "PHG". It is just the sort of "compare and contrast" topic that he writes on, and the article name changes in the past are another red flag, of PHG trying to find somewhere to place the stuff he wants to write about. I absolutely agree that an article is needed on this topic, but unless someone will commit to going through the whole article and verifying the sources in detail (and not just that they exist, but that they have been properly represented in the article), then I am afraid the article may be misleading. A good start would be to compare the article with our articles on Buddhism and Christianity. Any differences would need to be discussed, as it is possible the editors of those articles have rejected stuff that is being allowed here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I did not mention PHG initially, because I assumed that PHG was working with a mentor (he is no longer), and that there was no need to start a conflict with him again. Regrettably, I have now taken this matter to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration again, as it is clear that articles for deletion cannot handle this problem. We cannot get into these conflicts on each and every article that needs to be cleaned up. Jehochman 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like an interesting and well sourced subject.Biophys (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please check references, don't just say it looks good. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Jehochman 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• CommentI think there is a serious with the way that very good references are mixed up with very unreliable sources and it might be better to start the page again based on the reliable sources from the old article. At the very least a very solid effort needs to be made to remove the dubious references.Coffeeassured (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment O, I have an idea. Quit not ready to on this article I am (as yoda might say). Looking through the diffs, I see that PHG does in fact do some weird editing. These concerns can be addressed if we revert the article back to . This version predates PHG's nonsense. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Update I've ventured into my UC San Diego library's shelves on Jesus-studies (quite a few books there surprisingly). I'm looking at PHG's main source: The Original Jesus: The Buddhist Sources of Christianity. Looking through the diffs, his or her edits are clean, at least until --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance also covered cherry picking of sources, where a fringe or minority view would be given excessive prominence. If you are willing to carefully check and balance the article, I have no objection, but I felt that it might be easier to start from scratch, possibly salvaging bits and pieces. Historiography is not easy. We must be careful to give different theories appropriate weight. Jehochman 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I'd be satisfied with that. However, several subsequent editors have made helpful additions since that time. Could we possibly identify the major helpful additions and add them onto the version you linked above? If so, the result of this discussion could be Revert to pre-PHG version and restore subsequent helpful edits, if practical. Jehochman 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep and clean. This is a highly worthy subject, with quite a bit of disputable material though. I think I barely contributed about 15% to this article, mainly well-sourced historical background, quotes and photographs. Of course, this subject fascinates me, as do other subjects about cultural interaction (Greco-Buddhist art, Franco-Mongol alliance, France-Japan relations (19th century), France-Thailand relations, Sino-Roman relations, Arab-Norman civilization etc...), but it seems that some people just feel very uneasy to hear anything about historical interactions between Christians and Buddhists, Franks and Mongols, French and Japanese, Normans and Muslims etc... All I write is properly sourced, even if sometimes rare, arcane and a matter of controversy. Although Jehochman beautifully managed to get me topic-banned for a while (I respect Arbcom rulings though, even if I think they are wrong), I am proud that the Arbcom confirmed that it continued to assume good-faith in my edit, and that it actually encouraged me to keep contributing to other areas of Misplaced Pages besides Ancient and Middle-Ages history. I would appreciate if Jehochman could also follow this ruling and assume good faith with my contributions instead of making constant ad-hominem attacks. As for this article, please just highlight material you think is disputable and discuss. Cheers. PHG (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I never suggested that the subject was unworthy. The problem is that we have problems with undue weight and verifiability. Cleaning up this article will require considerable effort, probably more than just starting from scratch.Jehochman 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Is User:Jehochman really the one who initiated the Arbcom inquiry into User:PHG's activities? If so, from my perspective I don't see any biased work at all (so far) to support such a weakening in good-faith towards User:PHG. On the other hand, this article was not in the arbcom list of this decision nor has User:Jehochman's arguments and behavior in this AfD (superfluous !vote, completely off-the-wall AfD argument, which failed to mention up front the concerns about PHG). I'm beginning to think this AfD is disruptive and a waste of a lot editor's time. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rules lawyering is not helpful. Jehochman 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep part of a series of interfaith articles in the topic of Comparative religion; q.v. Islam and Christianity, Judaism and Christianity, etc. There's a problem with the content? {{sofixit}}! -- Kendrick7 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no doubt in User:Jehochman's good faith, and I think the arbcom case against PHG, as well as PHG's continued refusal to acknowledge that there's any problem in his use of sources, warrants close scrutiny of any article that PHG has edited. Furthermore, I think that Buddhism and Christianity has severe problems--e.g., the use of low-quality sources (Blavatsky? really?), a passel of original research, and an undefined topic which leads to the article having a vague and broad scope. However, all of these things should be solved through discussion at the article's talk page, rather than an AfD. I think the suggestion of deleting the article and starting over is a good one, but it's not the usual course of action we take (I have no idea why). It's fully within our traditions, though, to prune the article severely by removing OR and poorly sourced material, and that seems like a course of action that should be followed here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I was loath to do such a pruning as it seemed likely to lead to an edit war. There comes a time when an article is such poor quality that the best path forward is to erase it and start afresh. Feel free to do it, and shut this process down early. Jehochman 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay. Despite my concerns with Jehochman's AfD, he turns out to be on the right path. PHG has been using questionable sources, even in Buddhism and Christianity. It turns out that Elmar R. Gruber and Holger Kersten have a rather bad reputation as writers. I'll prepare a few quotes from one of their more famous books, shortly. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I have caused you any stress. Perhaps we can work together to clear any dubious information from the article. I will concede at this point there is no chance of blanking the article. Jehochman 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Perhaps we can work together here. Though I now think you're right, it's gonna be a lot work...
        • Yeah. It's quite possible if I had known more about PHG's bad choices of sources, I would have been cavalier towards him or her. At times I'm far from a paragon of always looking rational, which my edit history can attest.
        • At any rate, PHG uses the source The Original Jesus: The Buddhist Sources of Christianity by E.R. Gruber and H. Kersten. Its authors also wrote The Jesus Conspiracy whose article and excerpts any editors can read about for themselves. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Very fringe stuff....Andycjp (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Editors should not be made fools. And that is what PHG does those who might show him or her good faith. (Perhaps it's wrong to blame PHG for the synth, but there is synth with fringe and OR.) The nomination argument, though lacking evidence and a clear statement of concerns, is correct. There has been a WP:SYN of WP:OR with WP:FRINGE. And it's a daunting task to undo this mess. It's not just the use of WP:FRINGE books like the one by E.R. Gruber and H. Kersten, it's also the captions under the pictures. Those pictures are real, but the captions are highly, highly suspect and difficult to verify or invalidate with quality sources. This !vote should be taken to invalidate all previous statements that may contradict it (e.g., my striked keep !vote). --Firefly322 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Firefly322. There is indeed quite a bit to clean up in this article. I personnally removed "farfetched and unreferenced claims" , added quotes from the Jewish encyclopedia , and I think the only thing I did about E.R. Gruber and H. Kersten was put a fair use image of their book cover as an illustration of the litterature on the subject. I'll be glad to discuss if there are specific issues. Cheers. PHG (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PHG. Then can you tell us what the top 3 sources for this article might be? (I honestly didn't see any good sources strong asserted. And I did give a good faith look.) --Firefly322 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I only contributed small portions of this article (best guess, about 15% of the total). My source for some of the iconographical similarities is Grabar, André (1968). Christian iconography, a study of its origins Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691018308. For cultural interaction stuff, it tends to be Foltz Religions of the Silk Road (Palgrave Macmillan) ISBN 0312233388 and Jerry H. Bentley Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) ISBN 0195076400 and some of The Silk Road: Two Thousand Years in the Heart of Asia by Frances Wood ISBN 0520243404, and quite a lot of other sources for historical background. These are books I personnally own and cherish :). Cheers PHG (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Library is closed today due to the 4th of July, so I can't check these right away. By the way, I don't see The Silk Road: Two Thousand Years in the Heart of Asia by Frances Wood cited or referenced in the article anywhere. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at these four history/archielogical books. The Andre Grabar text mentions Buddha on 2 out of ~300 pages. And these are merely passing mentions of parallels. What I think needs to happen is for the article to be separated into a series of or at least two aritcles:

1. One on the possible historical influences (including classic WP:FRINGE like that of Arthur Lillie, which has been analyzed by at least a few respectable scholars and probably excluding relatively recent WP:FRINGE like that of The Jesus Conspiracy and its authors, since all respectable scholars, other than very kindly labeling them "amateurs", appear to be ignoring their work).
2. Another article on the parallels and contrasts of Buddhist and Christian thought

I'd be willing to try and work with User:PHG if he or she wants. FYI, he or she clearly has a strong commitment to respectable sources, just not sure if he or she guards the knowledge in wikipedia's articles as a jealous lover would against corruption and WP:FRINGE. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: THIS NOMINATION FOR DELETION IS AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY GUIDELINES. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. This article is controversial and Christians in particular are up in arms. This article is well sourced.

Also this material is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research

--216.27.141.135 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE Much of this article is based on writings of respected scholars who HAVE established historicity of contacts as a possible source of influence between early Christianity and Buddhism:

1. ^ Iqbal Singh, S. Radhakrishnan, Arvind Sharma, (2004-06-24)). The Buddhism Omnibus: Comprising Gautama Buddha, The Dhammapada, and The Philosophy of Religion. USA: Oxford University Press.

1. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage, Part One (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935), vol. 1, p. 449.

1. ^ History of Religions, 1918, E. Washburn Hopkins, Professor of Sanskrit and comparative Philology, p 552,556
2. ^ Bentley, Jerry H. (1993). Old World Encounters. Cross-cultural contacts and exchanges in pre-modern times. Oxford University Press.

Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol 3. Charles Eliot 20 of 22: Egypt was a most religious country, but it does not appear that asceticism, celibacy or meditation formed part of its older religious life, and their appearance in Hellenistic times may be due to a wave of Asiatic influence starting originally from India.

I also fail to see how "no historical evidence exists" of the influence WHEN THERE ARE ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS of an Indian Emperor'S WRITINGS IN STONE saying THE CONQUEST OF THE DHAMMA HAS BEEN WON IN ALEXANDRIA, EVEN MENTIONING THE EGYPTIAN KINGS NAME.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.141.135 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Keep it for future discussion on this topic which discusses what could have happened long time ago. Evidence may be not 100% reliable. But we can never get 100% evidence in Religious History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmlwin (talk • contribs) (moved from top)
• Strong Delete WP:NPOV and WP:NOR apply here. I wouldn't know where to begin fixing this article. Fringe theories are intermingled with reliable sourcing of noncontroversial events to give the impression that the fringe ideas are mainstream. Sometimes this results in nonsense:

Early academic research centers around Buddhist influence in Palestine and Greece during the five centuries prior to the birth of Christ. According to American historian Kenneth Scott Latourette, by the time that Jesus was born, "Buddhism had already spread through much of India and Ceylon and had penetrated into Central Asia and China."

• The second sentence (and the ref) verifies the claim that Buddhism reached into India and Central Asia, but NOT the claim that it had reached into Egypt or Palestine by the time of the birth of Christ. The Mauryan proselytizing section is no better. We move from a reference in Pliny regarding Indian ambassadors to the claim that 'streams' of buddhist monks moved into Greece and influenced philosophical currents. This article is filled with extraordinary claims but few unimpeachable sources. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Topic is clearly notable, and merits having an article exist on the subject. However, the current article seems to be to be pushing a lot of fringe theories and POV, and that leads me to think that deleting this article and creating the article anew, without having to deal with determining what to do with the often problematic current content, might be the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep 1. New inforamtion. 2. cite reference is affluent. 3. It seems to be non-christian's views. other point of view is helpful to NPOV. -- WonRyong (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. What new information?
    2. Which references? (those which I identified as WP:FRINGE or those which I found to be good but, as abused, irrelevant to the aricle?)
    • • As one who has honestly spent some time at a major University library researching this topic, I continue with my position of too much WP:SYN, too much WP:OR, and too much WP:FRINGE. So delete and userfy to someone who is committed to creating a non-WP:SYN article avoiding WP:FRINGE and excluding WP:OR. So far I have not seen anyone make such a commitment (By the way I certainly haven't committed to that. Nor has PHG. Regardless of such a commitment, strong delete is still the correct course of action. It is completely justifiable based on the article's WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SYN. No justifiable grounds for Keep, which I had discover the hard way.) --Firefly322 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2008 (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.