Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athena Starwoman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Starwoman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for improvement since June 2011 - 9 years is long enough for this stub of a stub - time to go. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "stub of a stub" though it's mis-tagged and there's no deadline, so the deletion nom fails. It also is properly verified so the tag itself is wrong. There's also more [1] available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being tagged for improvement is not a valid rationale for deletion, see WP:NODEADLINE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. There's also a fair bit of coverage, see: NYTimes profile, SMH 1, SMH 2 (Australia's most famous astrologer), Daily Mercury, The Age, CNN, and likely more. Unless I'm very mistaken, that's a pretty clear pass of GNG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, do you intend to add that to her page? CatCafe (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CatCafe, I've added them in a 'further reading section'. Right now I don't have time to incorporate the sourcing, but I will try and remember to get around to it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eddie891 makes some good points. Deus et lex (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough reliable sources on this article to justify its existence. --- FULBERT (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BASIC, sources added to article emphasise this. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That "$3m sea change" source is only a passing mention at the beginning of the article, and Dr. John Demartini is not a name known to wikipedia. That said, a quick tour through newspapers.com has her first mentioned around 1979, multiple photos, quotes, stories that suggest she successfully concealed her birth name. A book on Amazon. And she did appear in U.S. Vogue in the 90s. --Lockley (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.