Deletion of Buddhist influences on Christianity

Comment: Check the footnotes and the claims they support. Hardly well-referenced. Quantity does not equal quality and this article is a fine example. Also, 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: The topic is encyclopedic.  Period.  Is the article a mess?  Yup.  
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: Well-referenced? I'm not sure where people are getting from, considering that almost no information in the article is |verifiable in |reliable sources, which one would expect from a "well-referenced" article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Per |the deletion policy, editing is an ''alternative'' to deletion; and therefore unless anyone can say why the ''topic'' is unencyclopaedic, this has to be a keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DP)