Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions

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 of the debate was keep. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions

Delete the article is entirely original research. Jersey Devil 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, just looks to me like it needs references. It's pretty much factual. Brillig20 04:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (it's a valid and highly noteworthy topic), rename (the current title is awkward and unprofessional), add references (since obviously many exist in this area) and expand (since this is currently little more than a stub). Clean-up, not deletion, is warranted here, as is almost always the case for articles on noteworthy topics that are tainted by original research. If it is deemed absolutely necessary, and if no one steps forward to try and help bring this article out of the gutter, I wouldn't oppose merging this into Comparative religion as a subsection, since it's currently so short and since comparing religions based on whether they belong to the Western world or Eastern world is only one (and not an especially valid one) of many methods for broad religious comparison. -Silence 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename as per user:Silence. --Xorox 13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be renamed to fit in with the MOS but the concept is worthy of an encyclopedic page, even if the current page definitely does not reflect that in its quality. Ans e ll 13:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with comparative religion, per Silence. Fishhead64 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this article will always be original research and highly POV. We could have an article listing and narrating comparisons made by qualified people, but any primary comparision is just original research. All ideas of 'this influenced that' or 'this is like that' will be met with 'according to whom?'--Doc ^ask? 21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And any question of "according to whom?" will be met (eventually, at the least) with a citation or a removal, as is the case with all Wikipedia articles. I fail to see how "this influenced that" is any less citable here than anywhere else, nor how "this influenced that" is restricted to this article (or how this article deals solely, or even largely, with influences!); in fact, it plays a major role in the religion article in general. -Silence 23:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silence. Lambiam ^Talk 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lol, he manages to afd article that i have just added a "see also" link to :D --Striver 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with renaming and sources, per Silence. Wstaffor 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep D. Wo. 05:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.