Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity)
Please to be re-reading the criteria above () that is claimed to be failed to satisfy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. In addition to these, re-read of |GNG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions would be helpful as well. |GNG does not refer to (or imply unambiguously) neither critical thinking nor literary criticism. If it were, there would be very few articles on wikipedia. Who would judge/test the existence of such qualities. Even paper encyclopedias have not such criteria. This seems as another Umberto_Eco#Books_on_philosophy|overinterpretation of wikipedia guidelines and policies. The article in concern is a simple plot summary. The material is covered significantly in many reliable third-party sources, some of them being "mainstream"; that is people has taken the time and effort to examine the topic. Contrary to the claims in this discussion, mainstream coverage is not needed. Even placing paranormal tag is more than enough, the material is conveyed with a neutral style (i.e. with quotation marks, special words like "claim"). "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them": There is no undue weight on so called "fringe" or "not scientific" material because depth of detail, quantity of text and prominence of placement are all limited for this article. The material is presented with an Wikipedia:PROMINENCE#Impartial_tone|impartial tone and it does not obfuscate the description of the main views as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. There is no any opinion, theory or claim in the article, just facts
— User:Logos5557, 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BK||WP:GNG||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)