Deletion of Salvation bracelet

Comment: Piggybacking {{u|LovelyLillith}} here: I don't think any of those of us arguing for delete would argue that the books are not reliable sources for expressing what the persons that wrote them view the bracelets to represent. They are primary sources and they are certainly reliable for that, and could be excellent for providing context in the article if notability is established, or even providing context in another article.  however states that {{tq|sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.}} The books are not secondary sources as they are guidebooks on how to raise Christian kids, develop a Church, lead a Christian life, etc. They provide primary evidence as to how the people that wrote them view the subject, but they do not establish notability. The secondary sources we have here  that are accessible and have been quoted are trivial coverage: a paragraph at the bottom of a longer story or a quote from a pastor during an interview, or a description of what was put in Easter eggs, and all have been from local sources, none from national sources. People can have legitimate disagreements as to what amount of coverage in secondary sources satisfies the GNG, but as I have argued at AfDs about shopping malls, I do not believe coverage about Easter egg hunts in local sources satisfies the requirement
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: clearly satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per {{u|onel5969}} - I tend to be more liberal with deletion rules but this article has  and passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: Some editors appear not to be aware of  and, of course, 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:BIASED||WP:CONTEXTMATTERS)

Comment: Because this discussion hinges on on judgments regarding what count as  both as regards regional daily papers discussing a topic and with regard to how to treat publishers that specialize in a topic area, I strongly urge that it be closed by an administrator
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Sorry to say, but one of the most important factors about notability is that per  we should have enough reliable secondary sources to write an NPOV article. I see most of the sources to be Christian publishers with no indication or apparent reputation for scholarly fact checking. More importantly, a lot of the article is actually misinterpreted from the sources (with heavy ) and there is misleading information written in Wikipedia's voice. Quite a few of the references are passing mentions - none of this is significant coverage. The  is not convincing here as I can see that it essentially amounts to barrel-scraping information. All of that just proves that this is not notable enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WHYN||WP:OR||WP:HEYMANN)