Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Astrological Studies
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
— User:Dominus, 12:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GOOGLEHITS||WP:LOTSOFSOURCES||WP:CENSORSHIP||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)