Deletion of Faculty of Astrological Studies

Comment: It is our policy that |Wikipedia is not censored
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR)

Comment: Simply not notable. Practically no coverage in reliable independent sources, and what precious little there is is scant or tangential. In spite of the cries of  and  above, no reliable sources have so far been produced, and my own Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches turned up nothing that would come even close to satisfying our notability requirements. Even in the unreliable in-universe sources provided, mention is not substantial. Clearly fails to meet the requirements of our notability policies. Cries of  are a strawman argument. Articles on fringe topics are certainly welcome on WP if they are based on reliable independent sources. Unfortunately, no such sources exist in this case. The topic is mentioned only in in-universe fringe sources which clearly fail , and even then, coverage is far from substantial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GOOGLEHITS||WP:LOTSOFSOURCES||WP:CENSORSHIP||WP:RS)

Comment: I found zero gnews sources for this organization, which means notability looks very weak since it reportedly exists for over 60 years. A book search yields more results, but this are mostly astrologers mentioning that they obtained a diploma from this "school", so these are not really independent sources.  puts the bar rather high for companies and organizations, and I don't think we should put it any lower for astrological organizations. We don't keep articles about some exchange traded companies with 100s of employees, because they are not in the news. And here we are going to keep the article about a fringe organization that has never been in the news, just because some astrologers make mention of it in their book. Really
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: The organization seems to be notable. The article cites a several different solid-looking sources, I find plenty of ghits on a diverse variety of websites, and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/inside-story-the-big-stars-of-astrology-524209.html this newspaper article helps me to conclude that a lot of people who make a living in astrology hold credentials from this outfit. Astrology is notable per , and this organization/school seems to be notable within the astrology arena. The fact that I don't believe in the validity of astrology does not justify excluding the topic from Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)