Deletion of Acharya S (2nd nomination)

Comment: Notability hasn't been established through coverage in independent, |reliable sources. Acharya S does seem to be well-known on the internet and has many radio appearances to her credit, but these don't qualify as reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I don't believe policy requires coverage by academic journals. Although this author is claiming to come from a historical/secular scholarship (as distinct from a religious or theological) perspective, she doesn't need to be accepted (or even taken seriously) by historians to be considered notable. The criteria for |notability are different from the criteria for being a |reliable source. Coverage by any substantial third-party publication would count. Anewspaper with substantial circulation, a publication of a major religious denomination, a television program, commentary by a notable religious commentator, or any one of a wide variety of other sources would count to establish notability. If she is widely discussed notability should not be hard to establish. However, coverage by private web sites etc. which don't themselves have indicia of reliability for identifying who is notable don't count. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: For the same reason given in the delete votes. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)