Deletion of Acharya S (3rd nomination)

Comment: but rename preferrably, and redirect.  The author is not sufficiently notable to have a separate entry for her ''nom de plume''.  Put the article at her real name, and redirect this name to that article.  WP has plenty of small-time crackpot authors, so I see no need to delete, but in this case, the author is sufficiently irrelevant to literature to warrant separate articles on the level of Mark Twain vs. Samuel Clemens, and per what I understand to be the spirit of , I believe the article should be at the author's given name, rather than at her penname, which, to repeat myself, should redirect to an appropriately-named article addressed at the author's given name.  Regards
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:NAME)

Comment: and at the current name. While I appreciate the circumstances that led to it, the "Writings of" compromise was never a good solution. It is not uncommon for someone to be notable for their intellectual products but for there to be relatively little personal biographical information in the article. This is true of subjects from ancient times (e.g., Alexander of Aphrodisias) to the present day (e.g., William F. Vallicella, recently an overwhelming "keep" at AFD). The articles for these subjects are routinely named for the individuals, even though the content is mostly about their writings/ideas and the response to them, and the sources for their notability are usually focused on their works and not the person. There appears to be enough commentary about her ideas in independent |reliable sources to qualify. As one might expect for a fringe author, the materials tend to be polarized and sometimes dismissive, but the point at AFD is only to establish that sources discuss her, not that her theories are widely accepted. I've recently added commentary about her ideas from three books, including one by a respected religious scholar. I count at least six reliable sources for commentary on her ideas where the authors of the source material are themselves notable. So while she isn't the most notable person on the planet, there is enough for an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The author is notable, has been discussed in |reliable sources, and is popular. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)