Deletion of Deborah Houlding

Comment: I found one good source, http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/173230 Daily Star January 23, 2011, but that would only contribute one sentence to the Wikipedia article. Looking in the article itself,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Houlding&oldid=518743916 the cited sources appear to be Wikipedia reliable sources. The editors of the Wikipedia article are not running to a bunch of goofy website and citing those. The sources appear to be print based and have volume numbers, issue numbers, ISBN numbers. Just because the sources are from astrology doesn't mean they cannot have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy such as through the publication of corrections. By its nature, astrology does not lend itself to facts. I don't think it is fair to say that because astrology sources report on astrology, which does not lend itself to facts, the sources themselves cannot have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  It cost paper sources money when they print stories and they have to pick and choose between what stories to run through editorial decisions. They've published enough about Deborah Houlding so that the topic meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I think the guidelines need to be made clearer before we can make an informed judgment as to notability. Specifically, we need to answer the following question: ''Do magazines, journals and other publications published by a pseudoscientific community qualify as reliable sources?'' I can't find anything in the guidelines that answers this question definitively. The article has a number of sources. Many of them are independent of the subject. But are they reliable? Under , they must have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. These sources may have such a reputation, but if they do that reputation is held among people who adhere to the pseudoscience and ''in the context of a practice deemed by the guidelines to be pseudoscience''. Common sense tells me that we ought to be looking for sources independent of both the subject and the pseudoscience to establish notability; are there books and articles by people who don't practice astrology but who are writing, say, a history of astrology that reference the subject? This to me would provide a much more forceful claim to notability than a demonstration of his/her celebrity among adherents of the pseudoscience
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: article has sufficient sources. While "Astrology" may be a "fringe" theory, it is a very popular one. Unless the article Astrology is deleted via AfD, then its notable practitioners are notable and not subject to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: she is not an academic, and therefore is not notable as an academic, and I do not see how she is notable according to  since she is only known in a narrow circle, as demonstrated in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)