Deletion of Ethereal beings

Comment: About as  and unencyclopedic as it gets
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: it's somewhat poorly organized and written, but there are sufficient reliable sources to pass  easily.  Wikipedia does teset the truth of its articles - we only care about |verifiability and notability.  Many people used to, and some still believe, in this concept.  I'd re-word the lead and clean up the quotes, but otherwise, it's not  abad article.  I don't see the angst over this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V)

Comment: unsalvageable  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per Obotlig.  Take the good, merge with appropriate articles. After reading comments, it does read as a personal essay, though I wouldn't go as far to say that it's SYNTH or OR.  Not sure how I feel about merging with Non-physical entity, since that subject includes mathematical concepts as well.  That category may be too broad.  may be appropriate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:NUKEANDPAVE)

Comment: There is no indication from a random sampling of the sources I checked that this collection of |synthesis of disparate entities as a group of "ethereal beings" has notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: or at best ''''''. Massive OR and SYNTH problems, and the references seem to give just basic information about the individual subjects, but don't support their categorization as "etherial beings", much less throwing things from such wildly diverse religious and philosophical systems into that category. Basically, what
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:BLOWITUP)

Comment: but '''massively, massively clean up'''. This article is arguably on a notable topic, but is indeed a whole mess of  and  and is about 20 times longer than it needs to be. We probably should have an article on this topic, but this one is going to have to be rewritten from scratch
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per  and . Having actually read the wole article and checked through the sources, I found nothing by pure and unadulterated OR and SYNTH written without the support of any reliable sources whatsoever about a haphazard selection of "ethereal beings" of the creators' own definition and selection. No evidence based on reliable sources that the material presented here is noteworthy or encyclopedic. Frankly, the OR problems are so deep that there is nothing in the article that can be salvaged. The sources used are either toally unreliable, or are totally misused and abused without regard to , ,  and just about every other policy and guideline we have. I won't even go into the writing and article organizaton beyond saying that it's just plain gawd-awful: there's really no point in trying to "improve" what's here, nor anything of value that can be merged or used to rewite anothr article. Consign it to oblivion whence it came, and flush twice lest it slither back up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY||WP:COATRACK||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: The article is clearly a synthesis of disparate topics into a single article. It seems there are no sources which discuss things like "Ethereal beings" (and before anyone asks, I don't care about the precise title, that is completely irrelevant, I mean the concept) and it is just pure  to group them together. I would agree completely with the reasoning of OrangeMikey about the OR and SYNTH as demonstrated by the Etymology section as pointed out by Enric Naval
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I see no sign of independent reliable sources that cover the topic. Where are the reliable independent sources that cover the synthesis of the seemingly disparate sections into the article that help it meet ()?  On the etymology section; why does the etymology section appear to give the etymology of both words separately; does no source refer to them connected together ( again
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SYN)

Comment: Clearly a notable and encyclopedic topic and suitable for a summary article and historical survey. Current article would benefit from some pruning, but AfD is not cleanup.  does not apply because the article is not advancing or advocating a position
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: A steaming pile of  and  of the first degree. This article is beyond bad and cannot be salvaged in its current state. Just about everything that could possibly be wrong with it—from failed reference verification to pure synth—is on display here. The references do not discuss any category known as "ethereal being"; they simply talk about the subjects pulled into the category, most of which are entirely and wholly inappropriate for such a made-up category to begin with! There should be zero tolerance for this sort of nonsense; we're trying to build a trustworthy encyclopedia here, not present to the world some anonymous individual's poorly-researched personal essay. Further, there may well also be some sock puppetry going on here with some of the anti-deletion/anti-redirect users involved on the ethereal beings talk page; see the previous talk page where some extremely suspicious activity was going on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)