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.
Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage.
WWGB (
talk) 01:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Discussed in at least three independent sources - Christianity Today,
Cross Rhythms (which is cited in the article!), and
this book (wish I could give the page number instead of the search url, but Google Books is very annoying now in that it often doesn't display page numbers).--
¿3family6contribs 15:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep The book page number is likely 170 (you'll see that in the URL, but it may not be precise), that and the Christianity Today article seem to meet GNG. --
j⚛e deckertalk 05:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
slakr\
talk / 01:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep sufficient independent verifiable sources now provided.
Dan arndt (
talk) 13:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage.
WWGB (
talk) 01:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Discussed in at least three independent sources - Christianity Today,
Cross Rhythms (which is cited in the article!), and
this book (wish I could give the page number instead of the search url, but Google Books is very annoying now in that it often doesn't display page numbers).--
¿3family6contribs 15:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep The book page number is likely 170 (you'll see that in the URL, but it may not be precise), that and the Christianity Today article seem to meet GNG. --
j⚛e deckertalk 05:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
slakr\
talk / 01:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep sufficient independent verifiable sources now provided.
Dan arndt (
talk) 13:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)reply
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.