Deletion of Human disguise

Comment: Classic  violation and original research.  Take away the involved synthesis and the topic no longer has a claim of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: and I liked the "Human suit" title.  I consider the |work that has gone into this article since it was first deleted under the other name, and in consideration of the term finding wide use in http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&num=20&q=%22Human+Suit%22&cf=all reliable sources and many http://books.google.com/books?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&num=20&q=%22Human%20Suit%22&cf=all&sa=N&tab=np books (Who didn't actually look?).  The article will benefit from continued expansion and further sourcing as the term exists, whether Juman suit, Human disguise, etc., is used, and has a fascinating notability. All that need be recognized is the article's delightful |potential for improvement and how it can be made to serve the project.  What can be improved through normal editing does not belong at AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: as |original research. This doesn't appear to be an article at all but a list of various unrelated instances in fiction and other literature. If the supposed link is a recognised literary theme then there should be |reliable sources that identify and describe it - yet none can be found. I have no confidence that anyone has linked together Men in Black, The Old Testament and The Illiad in this way outside of the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: Coatrack article, fails . I've never seen such a disjointed collection on this subject except here. Wikipedia is not the place for original essays. Also, bar one word that has changed, meets '''CSD G4''' criterion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Topic" that exists only as an unsourced |synthesis based on individual instances (and, in a number of cases, on a poor understanding of those instances
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: I don't think anyone will argue that the article doesn't need work, but that isn't a reason for |deletion. Keep and improve it. If it needs to be renamed, then rename it. If it needs to be trimmed, trim it. If it needs more/better sources, source it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: It is |original research it is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Sure, writers have made up stories about aliens etc. disguised as humans. And with six billion people on the planet, there ''are'' articles/books that use the words "human disguise". However, there is no |secondary source that bothers to discuss this topic as a ''topic''. Angels in human disguise, monsters in human disguise, robots in human disguise – but no  discusses the ''topic'' of "human disguise". The article is . If the supporters of the article really want it, please change it to a "List of..." and just list the examples with links to relevant Wikipedia articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY||WP:RS||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The notability of this concept has not been established.  Some of the examples listed are clearly notable but there is no indication that reliable sources have discussed these examples in terms of the more general concept.  Our inclusion of them is a breach of .  The manner in which this page was created, and the technicality through which DRV overturned the speedy deletion is a more general problem that must be fixed.  This was a clear end run around an ongoing AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I was one of the main proponents of deletion and I am an Atheist.  Verbal is likewise not known for a strong ''religious'' PoV (I am unaware of Verbal's personal religious convictions).  Accusations that AfD was flooded by "religious" people thus demonstrably false. The original issue was the fact that the article was  with no indicators of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:GNG)

Comment: this quite obvious end-run around #G4, and we need to start thinking about sanctions for stuff like this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: still no indication that a coherent topic exists without editor  to create it. Article consists entirely of stringing together  sources with the occasional secondary source clearly using the word pair in their ordinary English meaning not as a term of art (e.g. "invisible or in some human disguise"http://books.google.com/books?id=IBuunLvo4CMC&pg=PR15&dq=human+disguise#v=onepage&q=human%20disguise&f=false). Article in its current form was created as a clear end-run around original AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: The section "In religion and mythology" (which does not seem unrepresentative) is an irrelevant and fanciful bit of artificial knowledge that could not exist anywhere by any means other than desperate Googling to sustain a Wikipedia entry's notability.  It is thus  at best, and the rest of the article has been put together by the same method.  Even a couple of academic lit crit articles on the motif would not make it a notable subject (they would just provide a couple of footnotable sentences for an article on a notable subject like Literary representations of the human form or some such
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)