Deletion of Isa dreams

Comment: The article needs work and may rely too heavily on biased sources. That said I think there is enough RS coverage to pass GNG. Just because a subject may get more coverage from sources unfriendly to a given group or faith identity doesn't make it non-notable. Also sources from outside of a given religious tradition are not automatically unreliable, though I agree with the nom that some of these do look suspect. This looks like one part legitimate content dispute and one part .  I am going to tag it as needing improvement, but I think the topic exists and there is enough out there to warrant coverage in an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I think a deletion nomination needs to go beyond attacking so-called "Christian propagandists". IMO the sourcing is dubious in places and the article suffers from some  problems, but the sourcing does amount to substantial coverage. A merge would also be possible if a suitable target can be identified
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)