Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation bracelet
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
— User:TonyBallioni, 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)