Deletion of Ra (channeled entity)

Comment: Please to be re-reading the criteria above () that is claimed to be failed to satisfy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. In addition to these, re-read of |GNG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions would be helpful as well. |GNG does not refer to (or imply unambiguously) neither critical thinking nor literary criticism. If it were, there would be very few articles on wikipedia. Who would judge/test the existence of such qualities. Even paper encyclopedias have not such criteria. This seems as another Umberto_Eco#Books_on_philosophy|overinterpretation of wikipedia guidelines and policies. The article in concern is a simple plot summary. The material is covered significantly in many reliable third-party sources, some of them being "mainstream"; that is people has taken the time and effort to examine the topic. Contrary to the claims in this discussion, mainstream coverage is not needed. Even placing paranormal tag is more than enough, the material is conveyed with a neutral style (i.e. with quotation marks, special words like "claim"). "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them": There is no undue weight on so called "fringe" or "not scientific" material because depth of detail, quantity of text and prominence of placement are all limited for this article. The material is presented with an Wikipedia:PROMINENCE#Impartial_tone|impartial tone and it does not obfuscate the description of the main views as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. There is no any opinion, theory or claim in the article, just facts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: The article is not about the book, it is about the channeled entity. How can  be the reason for deletion for this article? All point of views including critics (significant or not) can be stated if there is any. Lack of other point of views or critical material (significant or not) does not violate , as it states that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources should be represented fairly, and as far as possible without bias, by a neutral point of view, while writing articles for wikipedia". It does not state any course of action in case of non-existence of critical material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Cultural_artifacts and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Paranormal_as_an_effective_tag draw attention to how these kind of articles should be treated. Even in the case that  criteria is the basis, again the article does not violate 1st criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BK#Criteria as it is just a simple plot summary. Since it the article has not grow grown past a simple plot summary yet, significant critical material is not needed for its current state
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:NPOV||WP:BK)