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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sufficiently notable, possibly self-serving. An astrologer should be widely published before they are considered noteworthy enough for an article. PKT 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, unsourced. Pleclech 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable--Sefringle 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
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.