The distinction of "modern" and "classical" hinduism should be made, and FYI it was not my edit, where one may see, how consequent your disruptive behaviour is. You are blaming another person without any substance, just to discredit the others contribution. This is so funny to watch, whereas you haven't a single argument to keep your personal views about buddhism-related stuff in the hinduism article. 
back to the factual conversation: We could keep the Buddha-Avatar story in the article, but it has to be in an appropriate context. You have to show sources, when and why this had happened to keep the "history" relevance. Otherwise it would be a normal religious related sentence. I just looked in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu article where it says, that in 13th century AD Buddha was included as an Avatar of Vishnu?! So where do you want to put it in the article for history of hinduism?