User talk:KestraUEW
A nice Catch-22: if you were not the author of http://www.cuew.org/thefivepoints.html then posting it would be a clear copyvio but since you are the author then it becomes a case of Vanispamcruftisement. By all means take the article to deletion review but, given the complete absence of references from the article, I would be inclined to say "non-notable". -- RHaworth 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Then please tell me how other traditions get to talk about themselves and their beliefs under the same headings and we cannot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KestraUEW (talk • contribs)
Give me an example please. The whole point is that the other traditions do not need to talk about themselves: they are sufficiently notable that other people will talk about them. -- RHaworth 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Correllian Nativist Church, Kemetic Wicca, "Christian Wicca"... All of those were written by people involved with those traditions. The point is that if you want accurate information on what a tradition is about, why would you rather go to than someone involved with the tradition? I don't understand. How can you claim to be authoritative without checking with someone who would know best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.253.165 (talk • contribs)
Please log in before editing, sign your comments with ~~~~ and provide links if you want me to look at articles. All of those articles have had multiple authors so that even if they were started by people involved, they have been knocked into a more balanced shape.
I suggest that in user:KestraUEW/sandbox you write a short, neutral article about UEW. The Correllian and Kemetic articles are about the right length. Include independant references to establish that UEW is notable. Then take the article to deletion review. (Creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Eclectic Wicca was totally pointless - I told you above to use deletion review not AfD.) -- RHaworth 08:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I got confused as to how to go to deletion review. I will do as you suggest. Thanks for the information. I'm new to wikipedia, so it's a bit daunting to learn how to do the right thing. 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)KestraUEW