If "preternatural or supernatural immortal being" were a sufficiently comprehensive explanation of what does and doesn't constitute a deity, that's all Wikipedia would say on the issue. But it says a lot more. That's why I bothered to link to the full article. If you were interested in getting to the bottom of this, you would be making your comments in view of that, and not playing games by choosing to only consider a single quote apart from the greater scope of discussion relating to the topic.
Having said that however, it doesn't even matter if the line between what is and isn't a deity becomes imperceptible as we move toward things like Angels, or even Catholic saints. We don't abandon the usefulness of categories just because they sometimes overlap with others at their outer edges.
In a nutshell, pointing out the fact that there are indeed some inconsistencies at these outer edges does absolutely nothing to justify the blatant errors you have been making when it comes to classifying things that can be clearly placed in one category or another. Remember, you started all this by trying to classify deists as atheists, which is nothing like trying to decide if some mortal religious figure who may have performed a few miracles is or isn't a deity.
