User talk:Sg647112c/Chivalry-Now

Deletion discussion about Chivalry-Now
Hello, Sg647112c,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Chivalry-Now should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Chivalry-Now.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Chivalry now
Sorry, only just saw your note on my talk page. Yes, you could consider an article about the book itself which includes a note about the fact that a group has since been established to "live out" the advice given in the book (or something along those lines). But the notability of the book itself would still need to be verified by reliable sources. You should have a read of Notability (books) as a starting point. It may very well be that the book meets WP:NBOOK more easily than the group meets WP:ORGDEPTH.

You would probably need a couple of really good (independent) references about the book itself and at least one good one making the link between the book and the group. These would need to be independent of the book and the group. I found one (this review) that might work but you will need multiple sources. That's not to say there aren't others but (per WP:BURDEN) you need to have found them before you publish an article. Otherwise, the article about the book might be nominated for deletion on the basis that it, too, is not notable by Wikipedia standards.

The other option is to consider whether more coverage might become available in the future as both the book and the group gain notability. We have WP:TOOSOON for a reason - plenty of things that aren't notable yet will become notable in the future, sometimes in the near future. The aim, then, is to go out and encourage reputable media organisations to review the book and talk about the group. Wikipedia publishes facts that have already been published elsewhere. It is not the place to raise awareness of a new group, cause or idea, regardless of how noble it might be. Once reliable sources have covered the book or the group, we can cover it here.

Let me know if there is anything else I can help with! Cheers, Stalwart 111  02:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)