Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherish Life Queensland


 * 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. BD2412 T 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Cherish Life Queensland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:N significantly. Only results in a Google Search are this article, their website and Twitter page, and statements that they've co-signed with Christian activist organisations (entirely passing mentions or quotes from statements). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Minimal article with zero references. Teraplane (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Notability is based on the presence of sources. This one looks like there are more sources available based on a quick look I did. I added two of them. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to provide any of those sources that directly deal with Cherish Life here? That Guardian article you added is the only HQRS that I've come across, and only deals with a single event; there's no sustained or ongoing notability. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Surprise_Party/QVi9DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22cherish+life%22+oldest&pg=PT183&printsec=frontcover this one says it's the oldest anti-abortion lobby group in Australia. I'm suggesting it could be notable enough, but I don't feel confident to support a strong keep. Graywalls (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, while I guess that it gives Cherish Life very very marginal significance, I don't think it properly covers GNG. Even just looking at that extract, Cherish Life's significance was limited to one campaign and is phrased more within the people involved than the organisation itself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Graywalls as it is the oldest anti-abortion organization in the area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are multiple references here and on Google Scholar. As much as I dislike the controversy surrounding these debates, its a Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment about passing mentions not meeting the threshold. None of the results on the first page of your custom search or Google Scholar actually discuss Cherish Life Queensland, only give them as passing mentions (For example, this QUT event ad is listed on Google Scholar because of this: etc) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote should be seen as a reference to a work; one that appears to be inherently at peer-reviewed status given that it was part of a lecture event. As such the lecture is one item towards GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2020 (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.