Deletion of The Urantia Book related articles

Comment: or break up into separate AfDs at a minimum. This strangely formed AfD is from an editor who refuses to talk on the article talk pages to have his concerns addressed, and instead has been edit warring to blank out these pages for several days.  The reasons listed for AfD are "walled garden", which is from an ''essay'' he or she found, not any policy, and "POV fork", which is not at all what any of these articles are.  Meanwhile there hasn't been the slightest word from the nominator on what his or her POV concerns ''actually'' are, only page blanking.  He or she is saying that people have been " advocating for their perferred content".  Not true, people have been advocating for ''discussing his or her concerns on the talk pages'' and not blanking articles. I totally disagree with how these four different pages are all lumped together and rushed into AfD in this situation where the nominator has been so antagonistic on a topic and hasn't made more than the briefest effort to engage with the editors who know the topics sources.  The nominator hasn't evidently read the talk archives, read the sources, hasn't read the book that is the topic of the main article, or even apparently read the main article itself, The Urantia Book, which shows clearly two of the above articles branching from subtopics according to  despite his claim that somehow they didn't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: Cosmology (The Urantia Book), History and future of the world (The Urantia Book), and Revelation (The Urantia Book), as  essays about Urantia.  '''Smerge''' Thought Adjuster to Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book, or if that is deleted, keep it and stubify.  The concept of Thought Adjuster is central to this whole Urantia thing, apparently; it's discussed in some independent sources that I found on Google Books.  The content there has major  problems, though... but the topic seems to be notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR)

Comment: per excellent 100% agreed arguments of Abecedare and their followup by ScienceApologist, and my excellent arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book|Guy's related AFD nomination. It may well be factual to say "The book teaches 1 through 1000", but it not only leads to  problems, it also runs afoul of  because there is no majority-view commentary on other human knowledge about 1 through 1000 anywhere. None of these articles is any different from another in failing these tests. Move any ''reliably sourced'' content that cannot be cast as "The book teaches" into main article-- but then there isn't any, is there
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: or perhaps at the outside a slight merge of some and redirect, but only as a poor second.  These articles are basically in-universe treatments of subjects which have no provable independent significance, they are inappropriate forks per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: to The Urantia Book per . Any useable independently sourced content can be merged into the parent article. If the parent article becomes so chock-full of quality, well-sourced content in the future that spinoffs are necessary, they could be recreated at that point, but we're nowhere near there yet
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: or merge or redirect). The Urantia Book is clearly a |fringe topic, be it fringe religion, fringe science, or something in between. These satellite articles give undue prominence to the topic and therefore break |our neutrality POV policy by their very existence. I don't quite understand why SA says they are POV-forks, but I agree that they form a walled garden
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:NPOV)