This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This redirect has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Astra also appeared in a broadcast of "Richard & Judy" on Channel 4 (UK), October 11, 2005, alongside Janet Laveau. I think there is video of this on YouTube.
This article is awful. It reads like a essay. Tomorrow when I have time I am going to redo the whole article to make it read more encyclopedic and sound less dramatic. Things like- "When she was 14, young Astra too joined the Sea Org.",and "Astra wanted to leave Scientology,she figured that the only way to get out is to get pregnant" don't sound very encyclopedic. I am sure the sources are there (I haven't checked) but I did see a essay that Astra wrote which could be used as a source. I don't like the way the article sounds like it was written in a first person narrative.--BeckiGreen (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look. The reason for being notable is being a "suppressive person". Hence I'd see this as a case for reducing to a few sentences and placing in that article. Can't do if deleted so have deprodded. What do others think? Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's fair. "Suppressive person" is a) not a neutral designation b) not in and of itself a measure of notability. Would we redirect a ex-Christian to apostate? I'm not clear where you are going with this?--Scott Mac01:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Astra Woodcraft's being declared a suppressive person has attracted exactly zero attention from reliable sources, as far as I can tell. [1][2][3] There is not any significant notability otherwise either. --JN46604:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty obvious Scott. She has received some coverage as linked in the article, essentially for her experiences in, and her leaving of, the church of scientology. Hence a parent article where this is discussed might be most appropriate. I have only looked briefly into it, but "suppressive person" was the first link which came to mind upon reading and looking around it. I suspect that those people described as such by the CoS would not care about the designation - hence (a) might not apply. Not sure. It might be that if that article were expanded then some examples or stories might be included. The group might be something as well. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think there is enough in the sources, which span about the last decade, to write a biography. I agree with the comment above that what we have is not very encyclopedic, but the raw material for an article is there. Her story was covered, and the kids' website has some mentions too. If you agree that notability is given, would one of you like to rewrite it? If not, I'll do some work on it when I've got a little time. --JN46614:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
