Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Pedophile Association


 * 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. Darkspots (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) disclaimer: I am not an administrator.

Danish Pedophile Association

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an article about a tiny organisation. The organisation gets a tiny, one-sentence passing mention on page 6 of a Salon.com article. The organisation also gets a passing mention in an NJ.com article, which is mostly about Lindsay Ashford and about pedophilia in general. Then there's a "translation of an article by journalist Karen Seneca in the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet from Tuesday, 23 July 1996, page 13." The problem is that this claimed source is not verifiable, and that we have no way of telling who translated the article, how accurate the translation is and how much of it was actually about this organisation. Other than this minimal coverage, not much remains that might make this subject notable. A ecis Brievenbus 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.    A  ecis Brievenbus 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.    A  ecis Brievenbus 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Association is unfortunately very real and plenty notable, see, and  from significant Danish news sources.--Peter Andersen (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peter Andersen, lack of English-language sources is not a reason to delete. RFerreira (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but improve references. Just because a source is not online does not make it unverifiable. The format should give the article title, publication, and date like any other citation. A few other sources are presented in odd ways. There are sources that can be added such as the BBC. There are Google Books and Google Scholar results, too. The official website also has a (lightly-trafficked!) new address. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (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.