Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chivalry-Now


 * 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. Sources must be independent of the subject to establish notability. Wily D 07:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Chivalry-Now

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that it passes WP:ORG. An entity with 140-odd members - yes, there are a couple of books on the subject, but both are published by someone within the organisation, and that seems to be about it as far as coverage goes. Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The group is not notable at this time and, considering that it was only founded five years ago, it may be too soon therefore not historical. Google News found one link here but it mentions one of the books, not the group itself. My Google Books search provided the same result as the nominator's, one book written by a member. SwisterTwister   talk  20:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – Size of membership is not a determining factor under the referenced notability guidelines; there are much smaller groups with entries in Wikipedia. Although the two books were written by somebody within the group, their subject matter was not the group itself, but was rather on the philosophy which the group was founded to promote.  Neither book was self-published, and both are popularly available (Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc).  Since appearing on Wikipedia, the page has been linked-to in 14 other articles; has been categorized within Ethics organizations, Etiquette, Codes of conduct, and Feminism; and has been included in the Philosophy portal and the Philosophy WikiProject.  The article’s talk page notes that the group and-or its philosophy has been the subject of non-local newspaper articles, interviews, and its books are being used in college curricula.  The article itself has received high ratings as objectively written, complete in its scope, and well-cited throughout.  Sg647112c (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, in order:
 * If their subject matter isn't the group itself then the group is even more poorly cited.
 * The fact that it's linked to in 14 other articles does not mean the subject is notable, particularly when you made the links
 * The article talkpage notes that you claim it's been covered by non-local newspapers. If I posted on the article talkpage "This has not been covered by non-local newspapers!" I can't then cite myself as evidence that it's not been covered. That's not how things work. If you've got coverage, show that coverage. Ironholds (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The books' subject matter that introduce the idea, and the group that support the idea, are as linked as any such combination would be. I did make some of the first links when I wrote the article, but I was happy when other people made other links to the group - including the direct categorizing of the page, and its inclusions in the Portal and in the WikiProject (which I do not know how to do). I will work to get proper links to the aforementioned newspaper cites in place; cites to the interviews might be more difficult. In creating this article, our goal was not to "spam" Wikipedia, but to improve upon and add to it. Sg647112c (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, not linked at all? For an analogy; if I write a book on philosophy, this does not afford notability to the Cardiff Society of Philosophers. Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is humorous if not entirely misleading. In this situation, a gentleman wrote a book detailing twelve points by which any gentleman could live his life.  Then, a group of people developed around that book, and those points, agreeing to do just that (i.e.: live their lives by them).  Since being started, the group has grown almost entirely by word-of-mouth and through rather-limited public exposure, averaging a new member every ten days since its formation over 5 years ago. Sg647112c (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So a closer analogy would be that someone created a Cardiff Society of Oliver's Book About Philosophy, and I claimed that was notable because it's based on books? Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH spectacularly. The majority of the "sources" provided do not provide significant coverage of the subject; some don't provide any coverage at all - the subject isn't even mentioned. The others are from the subject's own website - certainly not independent enough to be considered reliable sources. The two books one the list are written by one of the group's founders. At best, they could be considered primary sources but I'm not sure they would even be considered reliable enough to fit that bill. I'm not sure what's going on with their publisher but it looks to be at least partially self-publishing, if not commissioned publishing. But that doesn't really matter - they would still need reliable secondary sources to back up what they're saying about the organisation itself. And that's if they say anything at all - they are, from what I can see, "philosophies" or "ways of thinking" rather than a book that provides details about the organisation that has started around those ideas. So I would suggest they don't actually provide "significant coverage" of the organisation at all - just the ideas on which it is based. Not even close to meeting WP guidelines as far as I am concerned. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - It seems that my hopes for this to be a constructive discussion rather than just a forum for editors to trash the article and insult the author were severely misplaced. Seeing as how the decision to delete this article is a forgone conclusion, what will Chivalry-Now need to accomplish when (or if, given this one-sided experience) this article may be accepted in the future? Sg647112c (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN, many of these issues should have been considered before the article was created. The subject needs to meet the criteria at WP:GNG. If it did now then it wouldn't have been nominated for deletion. If it does in the future (if "significant coverage" in " reliable sources" becomes available) then it will likely meet the criteria for inclusion. But you also need to have a read of WP:COI and WP:OWN and understand why COI editing is always strongly discouraged... Mostly because it prompts comments like yours above. Stalwart 111  (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had attempted to create an unbiased article; is the article as-is biased? Does my involvement with the group bar me from writing about it? Sg647112c (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is a good start but it is not the only requirement. The subject needs to meet the criterias at WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. COI editing is not prohibited but it is "strongly discouraged" for a range of reasons, including the fact that COI editors tend to add material they like, rather than material supported by legitimate reliable sources. The argument goes that if a subject was truly notable (by WP standards) then uninvolved editors would be prompted to write an article by the existence of reliable sources. That's not always the case and there are exceptions. But we also have WP:AFC to avoid some of these issues from the start. Stalwart 111  (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A close connection to the subject also makes ownership issues more likely - so when something is nominated for deletion for non-compliance with policy, the original author sees it as a personal insult rather than the routine enforcement of policy that it is. Stalwart 111  (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, Stalwart111, I have copied the page over to my sandbox so that my work won't be lost. I'm sure that we will meet the notability standards in due course; once more of our work is covered in the media (we are working on a piece with the BBC in London right now).  I have no problems with critiques of my work.  Out here in the real-world, I'm a scientist and I'm quite familiar with the peer-review process.  But that process never includes the offensive tone taken by Ironholds in his comments directed at me. Sg647112c (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2012‎ (UTC)
 * I won't comment on the commentary, except to say that we could probably all do with a civility booster-shot - myself included. Regardless, userfication can be a great solution. It allows you to continue working on the article away from the main article space until it is ready. That way you can continue to add references as they become available. When you think the article might "fall over the line" against WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH then you can either put it back into the main space or take it to WP:AFC and ask an uninvolved editor to help you create it (so as to avoid as future WP:COI issues). In general terms, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:PROMO a group because Wikipedia only reflects what has already been covered in news media, books and scholarly papers. The general public ("non editors") often think Wikipedia would be a good place to put some information about their group/product/cause to "raise awareness" and get it media coverage elsewhere, but it doesn't really work that way. Once it has been covered elsewhere, it can be covered here, but not the other way around. I, for one, would be more than happy to help you create an article once some reliable sources are available. Add a note to my talk page when you are ready to go. I'll also add a note asking for this AFD to be closed so you can work on it in peace. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfied - for the benefit of those editors who might wish to help out, the userfied version of this article is available at User:Sg647112c/Chivalry-Now. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Excusme me, but isn't an International group count as "significant"? Do not two books that sparked the creation of the group count as "media"? If this article had issues, I think they'd have been brought up, and appropriately so, might I add, when the article was being created. The repetitious use of "It's not Significant" or "Its sources don't provide enough coverage." does not help your case, as droning out logical/reasonable discussion with repetition is more spamming than this page could ever be by any stretch of the imagination. If a book has a site made, and a member of that site tries to create a wikipedia article about a concept/code of ethics, and they did their job well enough that it was allowed to be posted up on wikipedia, where are this issues coming from? What have you against an article on a code of modernized male ethics? Just some thoughts to think on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.45 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)  — 152.1.222.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In short, no. The books could not be considered "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" which is the standard required by WP:GNG. The terms quoted come from policies and citing those policies is exactly what editors are asked to do here. Your comment is complete nonsense and shows you have spent very little time trying to understand how Wikipedia works before posting here - your first and only contribution to Wikipedia (usually a pretty good sign someone offline has asked you to come here to "vote"). But Wikipedia is not a democracy and this isn't a vote. Well-reasoned arguments citing policy will always be given more weight than WP:ILIKEIT arguments from WP:SPAs. Stalwart 111  (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a notable organization as defined by Wikipedia, see WP:ORG. The organization has not received the required significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. In fact it has received close to zero coverage; all I found was this, from a small local paper and not written by the paper's staff so it might not be independent. Aside from the lack of notability this article suffers from a lot of unsourced original research and a frankly promotional tone. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to close - original editor has now userfied the article. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I didn't find any sources. I did find The Esquire Guide to Chivalry Now, but is not related to the group. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2012 (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.