Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation bracelet

:{{la|Salvation bracelet}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salvation_bracelet Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Salvation bracelet}})

• :({{Find sources AFD|Gospel bracelets}})

:({{Find sources AFD|Salvation bracelets}})

Contested PROD. Non-notable craft project popular amongst some strands of Evangelical Protestants as an evangelism tool. It does appear to be a popular craft project, but doesn't have the reliable sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. The only things I found on a Google search were from vendors or blogs, no articles or mentions from RS. Since it is a common item, it may deserve a little more mention in Wordless Book which is what influenced the creation of the item. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

::Hi LovelyLillith, what is RS? -vyxf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyxf (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Vyxf}} taking the liberty to respond here. RS is the Wikipedia abbreviation for reliable sources. Typically these are third-party sources from major publications that are generally recognized to have a strict vetting process for content, or many sources from local publications that also have a content policy that screens for accuracy. Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires that there be substantial coverage in reliable sources for a subject to be considered notable for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

::::What he said. :) LovelyLillith (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - also known by other names, including "gospel bracelet", and is notable: see these reliable sources: [https://books.google.com/books?id=Y-NhCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8][https://books.google.com/books?id=gS8ZjKc0GbcC&pg=PA107][https://books.google.com/books?id=8v17JqM_8l0C&pg=PA67] The article needs significant cleanup, though. StAnselm (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: There really ought to be a picture in the article, but I can't find a free image anywhere on the internet. Someone should make a bracelet, take a picture, and upload it. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

:*There is an image of a What would Jesus do? bracelet on that page, but it's solid, not beaded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I started with a little cleanup/source. You can find some RS sources by searching gBooks. But then I ran a news archive search and hit the motherlode. Scads of articles form the early years of this century when it seems to have been a hot fad. Lots of stories in daily newspapers about people donating tens of thousands of them to a range of evangelical and overseas missionary groups. Bracelet stories go back to 1995 with titles like "Operation Carelift '96 brings hope to Russian orphans" and "1st Baptist youth group in Big Apple for big ministry." Article in desperate need of improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note that much of this material on salvation bracelets is in What would Jesus do?. {{ping|StAnselm}} should we be talking about a merge?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

:*On close look, the Gospel bracelets?Salvation bracelets are distinct from the W.W.J.D wrist bands. Both articles should be kept. Although Gospel bracelets may be the more common name. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

:::Yes, WWJD is bigger than bracelets, and gospel bracelets have their own characteristics (like the accusation that the association of black with sin is racist - though I suppose the Wordless Book does that too.) StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I'm seeing sufficient RS in the Google Books link to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- Google books primarily return evangelical sources ([https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Salvation+bracelet%22 link], i.e. not independent of the subject, such as:

:*"A salvation bracelet is a fun way to share your faith with your friends. All you need is some twine or string and a few colorful craft beads. When your friends ask about your bracelet, you can explain what the colors mean to you." Etc.

:The article could be a definition at best; I don't see independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

:::*User:K.e.coffman's comment is absurd. His assertion is that no "evangelical" books can be regarded as a secondary source supporting notability for an evangelical topic.

::::*Corollaries: No Marxist book can be regarded as a secondary source supporting notability for any Marxism related topic. No environmentalism related book can be a regarded as a secondary source supporting notability for any environmentalism related topic. No yoga related book can be regarded as a secondary source supporting notability for any yoga related topic. coffman, you want to retract that? because your biases are showing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::*Though I haven't formed an opinion on whether the subject is notable, {{u|K.e.coffman}}'s comment is not absurd, presuming he/she was talking about the publishers rather than the content. Obviously a book about Marxism, as with a book about Christianity, shouldn't be disqualified from discussions of the notability of Marxist or Christian concepts. In this case the corollaries are actually closer to "No Marxist book published by a company that only publishes Marxist texts and/or ideas that align with their own. No yoga-related book published by a press that exclusively promotes the practice of yoga. Etc...". I'm far from a thorough look at the sources, but I did notice that a few of the first I checked were from Christian publishers. The crucial factor is probably that this subject is only meaningful within Christianity. If the subject were, say, creationism or sexuality, the discussion would take a different form, I think. Again, that's not an endorsement of either position -- just want to push back against this idea that a publisher who only publishes things that conform to a particular worldview is just as reliable as any other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you, {{U|Rhododendrites}}. If we had an article on a topic related to, say, Veganism, we would probably look for a general publisher or a scholarly publisher, and not a publisher solely dedicated to Veganism topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::::We could certainly use a book written by a vegan, even by a crusading vegan, to describe the way vegans use juicers. And we could use The Joy of Vegan Baking, by vegan chefs Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, to support an article on using almond meal in vegan recipes. The fact that an article published by Oxford University Press or The New England Journal of Medicine is always an excellent source, does not mean that no vegan sources can be used, especially, as here, when an evangelical source is used to describe the details of the use of a physical tool (a bracelet) used by evangelists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

::Did you read the sources I linked to? E.g. "[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8v17JqM_8l0C&pg=PA67 Unfortunately, many of these bracelets' color schemes reinforce the racist association of "black" with "sin"]"? StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 20 February7 (UTC)

:::Looking at that source, isn't it a how-to guide on evangelizing? Even if it is critical, I'm not sure it meets our WP:RS standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

::::It's certainly independent of the subject, and Baker Books is a reputable publisher. StAnselm (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::That doesn't make them reliable sources for anything other than confirming the existence of things that are talking about. We wouldn't accept a guide on how to teach your child yoga as evidence that a particular form of yoga were notable. I don't see why we should accept guides as reliable sources for topics in general. Also the headlines mentioned above E.M. Gregory, they weren't linked to, but from the headlines I suspect they were local human interest pieces about local religious groups. I don't see GNG here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::*Nonsense. A handbook on evangelizing is a reliable source for a tool used in evangelizing; in this case a type of bracelet worn by believers as an emblem of faith. Just as Matteo Ricci's De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas would be a thoroughly reliable source on the usual type of icon to take along on a mission to bring the Chinese to Christ.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

::*They are a thing, like POW bracelets Yellow ribbons and other "cause" symbols that people wear; but also somewhat like Friendship bracelets in that they especially appeal to the young. There are lots of article that describe their use and distribution. I had begun a few days ago by adding a few sources from small papers as I tried to figure out whether notability was there. It is, and I stopped editing the article when I realized that. But I also saw that there was more coverage in the late 90s and early 2000s. I chose not to spend the time untangling the origins of this trend - that section needs work. What I have now done is to WP:HEYMANN the second and third paragraphs of subhead "Bracelets" with material well-supported by major newspapers. To be sure, these are human interest stories, but they are published in major newspapers and establish notability even if they are about "about local religious groups". I truly question the implication that human interest stories in a major big-city daily somehow fail to confer notability on an activity because the stories deal with participation in that activity by "about local religious groups." As opposed to what? The implication is that stories in the same newspapers supported by human interest pieces about local NON religious groups would be notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:::*E.M.Gregory, my intention was not to imply that non-religious groups would be notable, but to be specific about the type of group here-- its just my writing style. If it were a local human interest story about a secular charity promoting a niche awareness ribbon that did not have significant coverage in major independent secondary sources, I would think the same. I don't have access to PROQuest, so I can't see them all, but the one from the Christian Post is a short paragraph at the end of a longer article, and many of the headlines suggest that the articles aren't about the bracelets themselves, but about larger events where they were given out. I don't think a quote from a local pastor explaining it to his local newspaper in a broader piece meets GNG. I would think this whether the content was religious or not, and I am sorry for the implication that it was only because it was religious. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::*Coverage in WP:RS even of cultural ephemera such as friendship bracelets, pussyhats or Pink ribbons supports notability. As per WP:GNG as long as it "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." We may differ on exactly where to draw the line between a "trivial" and "more than trivial" mention in some articles. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::*The "cultural ephemera" that you mention (except perhaps the friendship bracelet?) happen to have been in many different reliable news sources around the world, vs. a few books or articles with barely more than a sentence mentioning their existence. There was only one link (#2) presented that provided any real explanation of the bracelet. Saying something is notable because a newspaper says it was one of the trinkets in an Easter egg is really a stretch (in which case, everything else in the Easter eggs should have their own articles too, yes?). We acknowledge that the bracelets are a "thing", but only truly known by a select community. There would be a stronger case if the article could mention "In X denomination/church, the bracelets are used blah blah". I have already mentioned that IMO the topic should be a paragraph in Wordless Book, and have a redirect for searches for salvation bracelet. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:::*User:TonyBallioni Can you also respond to my comment above, disputing your assertion that a "how-to guide on evangelizing" published by Baker Publishing Group (an commercial publishing house specializing in evangelical books) cannot be used to support notability?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::Sure, I'll respond down here to keep it easier to read: they are essentially contemporary non--independent primary sources. Of course they are going to cover a niche product that they use. If the book you cited was published today we wouldn't use it to establish the notability of Jesuit practices in missions: there would need to be non-trivia coverage inl independent secondary sources, which I currently do not see. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::Your assertion about Matteo Ricci is that no Christian evangelist can be regarded as a reliable source on the topic of the tools that he (or she) himself uses in evangelizing. Is no surgeon a reliable source on the use of scapels? You really may want to walk this back.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::Scalpels have a number of independent RS that are also internationally known. Some authoritative Evangelical sources may be able to be used, but these bracelets are not nearly as well known as a number of other "tools of the trade", such as crucifixes or priestly garb. The object of the game for articles optimally is balanced coverage from secular as well as theological sources as much as possible, to maintain NPOV. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::You are now arguing that no book published by Baker Publishing Group (an commercial publishing house specializing in evangelical books) can be regarded as a WP:RS secondary source for any evangelical Christianity-related topic. Would you argue that no book published by Haymarket Books or Verso Books can be used as a WP:RS secondary source for anything related to leftist politics?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note That gBooks brings up a significant number of books, from a range of publishing houses (secular and scholarly as well as those that pitch to a Christian market and some that are church-affiliated) from which details of these bracelets - their construction, use and meaning - can be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

::The "significant number of books" has mentions of "so and so made/had/wore a salvation bracelet", not "this is the history of salvation bracelets" or "this is what salvation bracelets mean". Being a movie extra does not make you a notable movie star because you walked by in the background of the scene, which is essentially what the majority of these books are doing. If there are meatier sources than "One of our very observant team members noticed the performer was wearing a salvation bracelet" or "In his casket, along with a Bible he clutched in his hands and his salvation bracelet on his wrist" it would be far more helpful. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

::*I read your objection, and clicked the first link that cmee up on the linkbar "Gosepl bracelet" books: "Along with candy, we gave out Gospel bracelets— five beads, each a different color, strung side by side on a piece of hemp. Jesus often referred to everyday objects when he taught his disciples. A grain of wheat or a mustard seed, a sparrow, or a lily - they helped listeners understand the deeper spiritual truths of Jesus' teaching. The Gospel bracelets we handed out by the hundreds helped us to illustrate the message of redemption in simple terms a child could understand. The first bead on the bracelet is black to represent..." It continues through white, yellow and so forth with each explanation cited to a Bible verse. (The View from the Grass Roots - Another Look, By Gregory J. Rummo).

:This one is useful. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:::*Next hit on that search: "In my mind I envisioned myself pulling out one of the colorful beaded gospel bracelets and reciting the plan of salvation several times a day. I had a lot to learn. I'm thankful God surrounded me with a Christian community and friends who were ..." (Craving Grace: Experience the Richness of the Gospel)

:This one is not useful. It doesn't give much info other than the narrator has a colorful bracelet. Reciting the unspecified "plan of salvation" doesn't indicate whether that is something done in conjunction with the bracelet or if is a separate action, nor does it state what the bracelet does or if there is a use for it (is it just an appearance thing? is it used like a rosary? do you pray over people with it? are there scriptures associated with each bead?) etc. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

::::* Next: "Gospel bracelets are simple, albeit effective tools for youth ministry. After learning about them, we made them ourselves with beads, each color representing a part of the salvation process: gold for Heaven and the glory God has prepared for ..." (Skyline Teardrops, by Cody Benjamin)

:This one has a bit more substance, so it works. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::*Next hit is a little different, published by Routledge it appears to be not a work of evangelical piety but, rather a book about Disability Advocacy Among Religious Organizations: Histories and Reflections, by Alfred A. Herzog "The fruit of this three-year-old program has resulted in “involving over 60,000 children who raised some $375,000, resulting in 2,500 wheelchairs being restored and shipped to foreign countries with Gospel bracelets and Gospel literature.".

:This one doesn't work. It is just saying the bracelets were sent out with theological literature; the emphasis is not about the bracelets, it's about the program. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::*I don't claim to be an expert on Gospel bracelets. It simply looks ot me as though there are sources.

::::::*The fifth hit in that search reads, "Part of the program is making “Gospel Bracelets” as a craft. I share the Good News with them beforehand and then, what can I say, chaos erupts! The lay workers make their way through the crammed-in bodies of the children, while most of ..."

:This one is on the fence; other than the idea it is a craft tool, I don't get much information about the bracelets. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::::*The sixth: "Sensing a teachable moment, we handed out "wordless gospel" bracelets to each child and told the story of the colors (gray for sin, red for Jesus' blood, clear for a clean heart, green for Christian growth, and gold for heaven). The children ..." I rest my case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:This one has some actual information. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I was thinking of making a reasoned policy-based argument on a topic where I have no axe to grind, so I tried to open the citations. When I found that all but two of them (and those were a bit thin) wanted me to sign up to something before I could do so, I decided not to. Narky Blert (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:::I searched on Proquest news archive. Institutions belong; I happen to have access. The great advantage for Wikipedia is that it enables me to quickly search for sources from a few years ago. These bracelets got quite a lot of news coverage around the turn of the millenia. We have a presentism bias caused by the fact that a current pop culture topic will generate lots of hits, but you often need access to a good news archive to find sources for a fad like this that began in about 1995 and got significant coverage back then.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

::::You missed the point I was trying to make. I don't happen to have access. Narky Blert (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::It's a real problem. Is there a particular aspect, or article taht you were looking for? I could copy and paste it here if there is. I don't have a solution to the paywall problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• comment Some editors appear not to be aware of WP:BIASED and, of course, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

::Perhaps it would be good for some editors to be aware of WP:WHYN as well. We know these bracelets are important to whichever denominations know what they are; we are trying to determine why this item is important enough to deserve ITS OWN ARTICLE - and I don't think a consensus has been reached that this item merits one. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• 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. WP:GNG 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:::*Note that responding TonyBalloni's assertion of this claim of "local" sourcing above I cited a number of articles from major daily papers. TonyBallioni is extending this argument in ways deprecated by WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

::::*His failure to defend or strike his assertions about the WP:RS status of commercial publishers who publish Evangelical Christianity-oriented books speaks for itself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:*LovelyLillith, I refer you to the first hit in the search bar "Salvation bracelet" , books. The Venetian Glass Bead: 24 Colorful Jewelry Projects, a book of craft projects published by http://www.kalmbach.com/ Kalmbach, a purely commercial venture with no Christian or religious aspect. It reads"The Salvation bracelet... This bracelet tells the story of God's love; each bead color represents a symbol of eternal salvation...." My point is simply that sources are sufficient confer notability on Gospel bracelets, we seem to be in an era of Green ribbons, POW bracelets, and white knots. This is simply another signifier of commitment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• WP:HEYMANN In a divine intervention, Saint Anselm has now cleaned up the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

::Actually, I haven't finished yet. :) StAnselm (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:::OK, I've added three more sources, including two critical ones. StAnselm (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

::::Sorry, this is still OR or something that I cannot quite put my finger on, as in:

:::::*The salvation bracelet is a popular tool used in evangelizing to children, in keeping with teaching technique of Jesus. Jesus used items familiar to his audience at that time, like fish, sheep and boats.Schultz, Thom and Joan (2004), Why Nobody Learns Much of Anything at Church: And How To Fix It

{{reflist-talk}}

:::::How is "teaching technique of Jesus" known with such certainty? Should this be stated in Wikipedia's voice? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry to say, but one of the most important factors about notability is that per WP:WHYN 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 WP:OR) 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 WP:HEYMANN 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. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

::::Unsubstantiated, possibly biased accusation that: "Christian publishers with no indication or apparent reputation for scholarly fact checking" User:Lemongirl942 should either strike or substantiate this statement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

::This seems an unjustified bias against Christian publishers - did you actually check the publishers of all the references? Baker Books, for example, is a long-standing, highly-respected publishing house. StAnselm (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

::*Note also that the books cited are to major commercial houses including Thomas Nelson (now owned by HarperCollins,) Baker Publishing Group and Routledge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note that these bracelets are part for a contemporary fad for wearing creating Wikipedia pages for an enormous range of Awareness ribbons and Awareness bracelets (see::Category:Ribbon symbolism. To make this point clear, I just added an article from a major regional daily, The Grand Rapids Press: "Faith strong ; Christians co-opt culture to wear beliefs on sleeves. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note on closing Because this discussion hinges on on judgments regarding what count as WP:RS 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.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

:*All editors should, of course, feel free to comment on the questions raised. I am only suggesting that the close should be done by an administrator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin about WP:BLUDGEON Please note that despite attempts to bludgeon the discussion, the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources has not been demonstrated. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - per {{u|onel5969}} - I tend to be more liberal with deletion rules but this article has WP:RS and passes WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 12:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.