Talk:Pedophile Group

message: This has previously been speedied as junk.  The recent content was different though, and it got listed at WP:DRV, so I've undeleted it.  It looks to me like any questions of deletion should be a matter for Afd.  Friday (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, still don't see the undelete from here :-/ Kim Bruning 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted again, despite me explaining my undeletion on DRV AND here. :-(  Friday (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy 

message: I don't know much about this, but I just did some major tinkering with the article. Could someone familiar with this (maybe the author) check to see if I didn't mince any facts. Some of the sentences were written kinda funny. I wasn't quite certain what this was referring to: "It was originally founded in 1985." So check that. 
There is also a jump in tense in the second paragraph that I didn't want to monkey with: "In 1996 the group had 80" ... "Congress in Denmark. It is also a..." --DanielCD 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: I deleted the following content:
:According to an October 22, 2001 article at the Salon.com website, the group asked its members to provide misleading information to authorities to help Eric Rosser, a man charged with child molestation, escape from authorities. 
My reasoning is that the source cited does not provide any significant grounds for believing it is true.  The source makes one statement, which is not substantiated with evidence.  Perhaps there is evidence, but this has not been provided in the article.  In other words, it is an accusation that has not been substantiated.  Linking to the article as if it were an authority is just passing along a rumour.  If the accusation is true, then it should be shown to be true.  It is all too easy to make emtpy accusations and spread rumours about these groups without following up with the proper investigation.  Anyway, if the accusation is proved true sometime in the future, the content is above and can be returned to it's place.  66.130.46.178 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case we have clearly attributed the assertion to a reliable source. That is sufficient for this encyclopedia. If there are other reliable sources which contest the accuracy of this assertion then we can include those too. -Will Beback 21:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did They Or Didn't They? 

message: Very unnotable organisation hence the redirect, if anyone opposes we can go to afd, SqueakBox 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cease your vicious and repeated mischaracterisation of myself as a banned editor. Do not delete articles without sending them to an afd or tagging them for a speedy deletion. 86.150.128.67 06:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Can someone please explain why the Dutch Society for Sexual Reform is in the 'See also' section on here? I've checked both articles, and can't see any relation in their content, aside from both being from similar areas of the world (but not the same country! Danish = Denmark, Dutch = Netherlands!). I'm fairly sure if they're not related, the DSSR won't want to be associated with this article! 90.221.233.213 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to Dutch Society for Sexual Reform?

message: There needs to be more about public response to this group in Denmark. If that means linking to sources that are only in Danish, this is not a problem. Idiotically, the person who started deletion debate for this article described the group as non-notable because he/she couldn't find many English-language sources. It seems to escape a lot of Wikipedians' attention that there is a world out there speaking and writing in different languages, and coverage by CNN and the NYT is not the only mark of notability. Please, if you read Danish, help us out by expanding the article to better describe the context in which this group operated. Credulity (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Coverage and response in Denmark