Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Affirmations

: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 keep. (X! · talk) · @646 · 14:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Phoenix Affirmations]]=

:{{la|Phoenix Affirmations}} ([{{fullurl:Phoenix Affirmations|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Affirmations}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article presents no evidence of notability or context, and doesn't seem likely to be expanded beyond its current state. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

keep - Articles like [http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/273286_tony09.html this], [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/73722 this], and [http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/510769/progressive_christians_spread_message_in_clovis/ this] clearly demonstrate that the affirmations have had an impact for some groups of Christians and that the affirmations pass the GNG. A [http://www.google.com/search?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Phoenix%20Affirmations%22&cf=all&sa=N&tab=nw Google search] quickly reveals that a significant number of people are talking about them. The article can easily be expanded to 1) cover the book they came from and 2)talk about the reaction they have generated. (Indeed, I was planning on expanding the article to cover these aspects myself, but haven't gotten around to it yet.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, the proper scope for the article would be the book, rather than just this one part of it? In that case, it should simply be moved to the title of the book and expanded there. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Yes it should be moved if this is closed as keep... The book is titled "The Phoenix Affirmations" --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep Has had a fair amount of coverage. Cxz111 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep per the sources provided by Thaddeus. It passes WP:N. Tim meh 23:31, 20 June 2009 (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.