Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chivalry-Now
fails  and  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
— [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart111''']] [[User talk:Stalwart111|(talk)]], 01:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:ORGDEPTH||WP:RS||WP:PRIMARY (Wikipedia:Notability)