Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings
per  and . Having actually read the wole article and checked through the sources, I found nothing by pure and unadulterated OR and SYNTH written without the support of any reliable sources whatsoever about a haphazard selection of "ethereal beings" of the creators' own definition and selection. No evidence based on reliable sources that the material presented here is noteworthy or encyclopedic. Frankly, the OR problems are so deep that there is nothing in the article that can be salvaged. The sources used are either toally unreliable, or are totally misused and abused without regard to , ,  and just about every other policy and guideline we have. I won't even go into the writing and article organizaton beyond saying that it's just plain gawd-awful: there's really no point in trying to "improve" what's here, nor anything of value that can be merged or used to rewite anothr article. Consign it to oblivion whence it came, and flush twice lest it slither back up
— User:Dominus, 09:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOTESSAY||WP:COATRACK||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)