Deletion of Gnosticism in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Comment: AFD is not cleanup and we don't have a deadline.  It is, on the other hand, our |explicit policy that articles may be incomplete or otherwise in need of development.  99% of our articles are in this state and there seems to be no reason to pick on this one.  The topic is notable and it doesn't take long to find a substantial book about it such as ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wRRiQgAACAAJ Forbidden Faith: The Gnostic Legacy from the Gospels to The Da Vinci Code''.  Now what usually happens in such cases that that these IPC articles are spinoffs from the main topic.  If one doesn't care for the spinoff then you just merge it back into the main article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: While I agree that the actual topic is probably valid, and a decent, sourced article could probably be created on the subject, its current state is such a unsalvageable mess of original research and unsourced material that it would just save a lot of time to just delete the whole mess and start over, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The nomination rationale is bankrupt. Wikipedia rules that tell us that articles that can be improved, must be kept, are not temporary. There is no . I would say 'speedy keep' were it not for 10lb's rationale of OR, which has to be addressed, I guess. I mean, he has not done anything but assert it, so whatever. I (also?) occasionally return to the point of frustration past resignation, because of rubberstamped delete votes and nominations. As for improving the article, it is just as simple as picking a name for the list, putting it in Google Search with "gnosticism", and copying the URL. I found sources for all I have seen so far
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: Nominator notes that no one has cleaned it up... but has not himself cleaned it up!  Just because no one has cleaned up an article suitable for cleanup does not mean that deletion is an acceptable option.  The topic is clearly notable, even if I agree that many of the examples are both currently unsourced ''and'' likely unsourceable. Thus, a deletion is not a policy-supported option per , even though cleanup is clearly appropriate. Oh, and per , merging much of this content back into Gnosticism would be a less-preferred option, but with more policy support than an outright deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:IPC)