Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Houlding
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 
— User:Uzma, 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)