Deletion of UFOs and the Bible

Comment: This is not , but based on a lot of published work.  My personal belief is that the whole business a a load of cobblers, but that is '''my''' opinion.  A lot of published sources are cited, and editor's views of them are their .  I am certainly not an expert of the subject, but it is a view that people hold, and they are entitled to seek to put forward that view.  There is a significant difference between an article about a view, and a POV article.  If the article is expressing only the POV of its believers, the appropriate course is for some one to add a section setting out the arguments of those debunking the theory, so that the reader is offered both opposing POVs, and can make his own choice.  However, that implies improving the article, not deleting it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POV)

Comment: as a violation of  and . An unwarranted promotion of fringe theories that doesn't represent all significant views fairly and without bias
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: The subject may be a fringe to many people, but the article does not represent  at all.  However, it is nearly unreadable and needs to be heavily edited
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per ,  (the article is based largely on the editor's own work, which is published in books, but not ones that can be classed as |reliable sources), and serious |conflict of interest.  Even if these didn't apply, I don't think the article can be cleaned up to Wikipedia standards: I note that the nominator made an attempt to do so before nominating it for deletion. At best I can see benefit in a short paragraph or two in Unidentified flying object
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:OR||WP:SOURCES||WP:COI)

Comment: The idea is a load of cobblers - but there is a hell of a lot in print about it. People like von Daniken are not so much discredited by the scientific establishment as never having been credited in the first place - but they and their theories are notable (unfortunately...). Apart from that external link (which I regard as spam), the article looks well researched and documented. I can't see much that violates . The whole concept is 'fringe' , but it's much-publicised fringe - unlike some of the snake-oil peddlers and self-improvenent jockeys we get trying to push their own particular brands. To me, this attempts to cover the lot of this particular bee in the bonnet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: An editor has deleted the section "Angelic theory" on the basis that this theory seems to be solely the product of Downing's making, and as the author of this article, that editor felt there was a conflict of interest.  Looking at the references, the article appears to be a |coatrack on which to hang this self-developed angelic theory.  Without that section, the whole premise of the article (that UFOs are specifically related to the Bible) seems to fall apart.  The "ancient astronaut" theory (which already has its own article) is not specific to the Bible, but addresses ancient imagery from cultures around the world.  The "demonic theory" and the "fallen angel" theory appear to be |synthesis on the part of the author to relate the UFO phenomenon to issues addressed in the Bible.  No references are given to indicate that any other author shares this view.  Finally, the last section ("UFOs and religious imagination") is not related to the Bible at all, but rather to newer spiritualities that are unrelated to the Bible
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:OR)

Comment: I note that |citing oneself ''is'' allowed but I think the article gives |undue weight to Downing's views
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COS||WP:UNDUE)