Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Parker

I should first declare that I am Julia Parker's husband, whose contribution to her books has been as editor; I am not an astrologer, though I have written on its history and social significance. I gather that arguments are being put forward for the removal of the page devoted to Julia Parker, an astrologer, on the grounds that she is 'not notable'. I take it that 'notabilty' may mean that a person is notable within his or her own community, when very few people outside this may have heard of him or her: this will certainly be the case where science, psychology, medicine and many other disciplines are concerned. To remove a scientist who has made serious contributions to science but is unknown outside his field because there has never been press interest or publicity for his work, would obviously be extremely silly. 'Notability' which is general and world-wide, need not be discussed; obviously any person whose name would be recognised by a majority of the general public should be included. In the case of Julia Parker, very few people interested in astrology - including serious social scientists who do not subscribe to astrology as a valid belief system - will not have heard of her, and The Compleat Astrologer and Parkers' Astrology is often cited in serious papers and volumes. It could perhaps be argued that this to some degree makes her 'notable'. As to the general public, she has lectured in England, the US, Australia and Europe, and has appeared in many TV and radio programmes discussing astrology with its critics. Her books have sold in over thirty countries to several million people. This may also to a argue 'notability'. Finally, it has been suggested - not by myself - that the attempts to remove Julia Parker from Wikipedia is part of an attempt to remove astrologers in general by those who take an antipathetic attitude to the subject. It will be obvious to most people that if this is the case, and subjects of biography are to be removed from Wikipedia on the grounds that they subscribe to belief systems with which others disagree or even believe to be harmful, it will be but a short step to arguing for the removal of those who subscribe to religious beliefs in general. I trust that this accusation is untrue, and that Wikipedia will continue to resist all attempts at 'political' interference.