Deletion of Jane Roberts

Comment: per , nom, Eldereft, etc
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: This article meets all of the criteria set forth in  and that alone should suffice in order to keep the article. It is well-referenced and has a number of reliable sources. Roberts wrote a number of books that were independent of the "Seth Material" and thus if necessary a merge could be debated but AfD is not the place to discuss a merge, and this topc has been exhausted on the talkpages of both articles. Check the archives
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Article is well sourced, meets WP:BIO. This is the wrong forum to propose a merge per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: Okay, I'm off the fence. Even leaving aside the accusation of bad faith, the number of Roberts' Seth and non-Seth works would make a single article on her and all her books impossibly large. Keep per , I am tempted to say
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: As an author whose books have sold from 5 to 7 million copies (depending on which source is checked), Jane Roberts is |notable without any doubt.  She wrote other books that were not about the Seth Material, therefore the two articles cannot be combined without blurring topics that are not the same.  Also, other individuals have "channeled" the Seth personality - as reported by |reliable sources - that is another point of difference showing that the two topics are not the same.   The nominator stated that ''"Numerous admins and other users have attempted to merge the two articles, only to be reverted by a fan or two of the subject"'' - that is incorrect.    If the supporters of merging were numerous, how could ''"a fan or two"'' succeed in stopping the merge?  They could not.  As
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: This is a biographical article, the only relevance for deletion is whether or not it fits . As far as I can see, there have been enough articles by secondary sources written about her to justify an article.  The other arguments above seem mostly relevant to improving the article, which as a number of editors will say, is not grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)