Deletion of List of people who went to heaven alive

Comment: and give it a more appropriate name - something like ''Religious belief in the possibility to enter heaven alive''. It is a pretty well sourced theme in theology and comparative religions, so I do not see problems with  or 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATTR||WP:V)

Comment: This certainly isn't a joke, and there are sources for the individuals given. However, there are significant  and  problems not solvable simply by changing the title. One difficulty is that there are enormous differences between the degree of belief and sourcing for various individuals. In Judaism, for example, Elijah is specifically mentioned in the Bible, while other figures are mentioned only in relatively minor Midrashic sources. Simply listing them creates an appearance of  commonality of belief and importance which simply doesn't exist in the underlying religious traditions. A more fundamental problem is that the whole topic, as it stands, represents  -- it claimss a commonality among figures who have different stories. for example it presents them as going to a common, a place called "Heaven", which is impliedly represented as being common to every religion listed, even though not every religion listed has this concept. I'm not sure that changing the name would solve the problem. I'm not questioning that this could be a valid topic. It's the business of original researchers to identify common themes in disparate cultures and to provide explanations why regarding the themes as common is legitimate. But I don't believe it's the business of Wikipedia to do this sort of original research. And it's even less the business of Wikipedia to do it in a way that treats commonality as a hidden assumption which the reader is required to take for granted. The article should at least address the question of whether other religions actually have a comparable concept of "heaven" rather than fitting them into the framework of ones own worldview unquestioningly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:OR)

Comment: Per nom. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per nom. I would love to believe in this but fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:V)

Comment: to a better title, since the current title seems to assume the truth of the included religious claims and therefore violates . The article itself is not bad, and has some reliable sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: fails  and  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:BLP)