Deletion of List of people said to be angels

Comment: per . The article doesn't even state what determines a person to be an angel -- actually, it says these are people ''said'' to be angels, so maybe the article creator himself doesn't necessarily believe it? '''Erpert
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: inclusion criterion unclear and too vast (, ). Who called who an angel? If it's all claims by Unarius Academy of Science, then it doesn't deserve its own article as there is no independent source to establish the notability of this claim.--Special:Contributions/70.80.234.196|70.80.234.196
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTIINFO||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: The article has notability as established by the above several precedents in the religious lists categories where people of various types of alleged extraordinary nature are compiled. It draws on a reliable scholarly source about new religious movements and the role that prophecy, especially failed prophecy, plays therein. It is not a sectarian source, as evidenced by its title; ''When Prophecy Never Fails: Myth and Reality in a Flying Saucer Group''. Users accusing me of violating ollocks or oatrack, therefore are at best neglectful of what the article actually implied or at worst actually dishonest. Only one source has been used because I have only had time to consult one source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP: B||WP: C)

Comment: As is, it's a |coatrack. If left alone, it would be an unmaintainable list due to the wide open and subjective nature of the inclusion criterion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)