Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Correllian Nativist Tradition


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 14:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Correllian Nativist Tradition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization. No coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; seems like a hoax. Per Wicca, the religion is a twentieth-century creation, so the idea of a subgroup being founded in 1879 (the date is repeated; it's not a single typo here) is impossible.  Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not a Corellian Wiccan but I do run a major Wiccan website. I can't personally speak for the Corellians as I have never met them but I have met people who have been in contact with them. The Corellians are definitely real and operating in London. They have a group running at this website below which meets 'in the flesh' which is why I came to the site. I wanted to find out more about them. It is definitely not a hoax. I was actually surprised to see that their entry was up for deletion as I understand them to be one of the better organised and more serious Wiccan lineages.


 * http://www.globalwicca.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.193 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 January 2016‎

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Fence: It's not a hoax article but needs heavy pruning if it remains. Whether it does or not, a brief paragraph should probably appear at Contemporary witchcraft. There's a fair amount of evidence regarding its existence out there, though what can be considered secondary WP:RELIABLESOURCES is a bit problematic. Examples outside of pagan sources are few and far between and include their founding of Witch School (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3711/wiccans-get-out-of-building-contract is also a pointer), being successful co-plaintiffs for veteran right to have the wiccan pentacle on headstones, and this re South African repeal of witchcraft laws (apparently subsequently successful). Additional hints to potentially inaccessible news stories are here. It's also possible that they're in Alex Mar's Witches of America.  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  12:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - wait, isn't Corellia the home planet of Han Solo in the Star Wars films? Thinking potential hoax here. Blythwood (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if they are a genuine group, I do not see how they are notable among the thousands of Wiccan traditions that exist. Where are the reliable, third party references? TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This group is notable because they exist on the ground not just in books. There are thousands of groups in theory but on the ground there are only about a dozen wiccan lines active. I  only talking about the London area. This is one of the active ones so people might come to Wikipedia to find out who they are, as I did. This page could be cleaned up but deleting would destroy useful info Keep  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.153 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide references to reliable sources that support your statement? That is what the article needs in order to be kept. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2016 (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.