Deletion of Francis Frangipane (2nd nomination)

Comment: this AfD puts me in mind of one from a couple of weeks ago on an author, Andrew Heywood, the author of a number of textbooks on political theory.  There, as here, Nom's pretty persuasive argument was " The only source is credited to his own website."  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood.  This thing is, Heywood's textbooks sold an astonishing number of copies, and according to the DesMoines Register, there are 2 million copies of Frangiane's many books in print.  It's not a  but Amazon.com shows literally hundreds of reviews for Frangipane's books, by verified purchasers.  As with Heywood, I am having trouble finding sources about Frangipane (I did find a couple, and added them to the page).  He has been a columnist at Charisma (magazine) for years, but those are articles by him, not about him.  This AfD is not simple
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The only section with any citation is the bibliography section. Without it, it would have qualified for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people (WP:BLPPROD)

Comment: the article is written in a promotional tone, and I see no good claim of meeting either , or .  River of Life Ministries appears to be a single congregation, not a wider movement.  I can't easily evaluate the claim that he would meet ; I don't see clear evidence for it. As far as , he has a lot of works but I'm not sure any of them are considered important in any way, and trade press coverage of the books won't make him notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:CLERGY||WP:GNG||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: I'm not able to find any substantive review of the subject's works. That's how notability for authors is judged. If 3rd party sources take notice of the author's work, then it's appropriate to have an encyclopedia entry. I don't see it this case. As discussed above, apart from DM review, the coverage is shallow and incidental.  perhaps
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The subject of our discussion albeit as earlier mentioned does not have much reliable sources in the article,  a google search verifies his notability. There are multiple independent sources which discuss our subject of discussion and on that note i say via  and , this article merits a stand-alone
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:BASIC)