Deletion of Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

Comment: Given a chance to actually have some meaningful editing, this could be a very decent article with lots of references to historical and scholarly works. There are at least two drafts in userspacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child_sexhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VigilancePrime/ACS attempting to do just that since the mainspace article is subject to POV revert wars. Appears to be a  nomination after losing the latest round of "let's gut the article."http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult-child_sex&diff=185007150&oldid=185003553
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: was |Snowball Keep) -- Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush all over again. This was |sent for deletion only in November. It was closed as a '''Keep'''. SqueakBox took the result to |deletion review. The review endorsed the close as keep. Unable to succeed that way, those favoring deletion attempted to merge this article into child sexual abuse|another. They were so persistent against consesnsus that the article required admin intervention. Then, the article was moved to adult-older teen sex, again without consensus. Another admin moved it back, for which trouble he has been threatened (by the nom) with being taken to |arbitration. I want to see a consensus solution here, but this sort of activity makes seeing such a solution very difficult
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:AFD||WP:DRV||WP:RFAR)

Comment: per , , , non-satisfaction of  and  and as POV#POV fork|POV fork of child sexual abuse and pedophilia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE||WP:NOR||WP:V||WP:N||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Now, I don't know about the content of this particular article, but the argument that the article is a POV-fork doesn't seem to me to be quite right. Redirecting this article to child sexual abuse seems particularly weird when, historically and anthropologically, adult-child sex was considered the norm in many cultures other than our own. Granted, in today's world and in our global culture, there's almost no place adult-child sex is legitimately practiced, but it is quite presumptuous of us to say that adult-child sex is always child sexual abuse. I mean, was Plato sexually abusing his pupils? Is that even a legitimate question to ask? This is clearly a topic that an encyclopedic exposition can be written about from a |neutral and non-inflammatory perspective. Certainly child sexual abuse will be mentioned, but there are plenty of reasons to think that there will be more to this subject than simply child sexual abuse
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: this nonsensical POV fork. Enough with the |POINTy refactoring and moving it around; just nuke it with extreme prejudice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: As I've Talk:Adult-older_teen_sex/Archive2#The fundamental problem with this article|argued before, this article is a  of child sexual abuse, and no amount of improvement to the article will change that. Quite simply, 'adult-child sex' '''is''' just another name for child sexual abuse, but it is only used by  fringe groups, principally pro-paedophile activists, and that still shows through in the article. The mainstream view is that there is no such thing as adult-child sex which is not inherently abusive (or, some argue, that there is no such thing as 'adult-child sex' at all), and that is what NPOV demands we reflect. Attempting to rewrite this article won't make it neutral; the very subject is inherently non-neutral, and it always will be. To quote from what I said before
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Granting your premise, the article would be keepable as one written in |summary style.  However, it's important to also consider what this article says about how the various concepts relate to each other.  To overlook that is to conclude that we have no need of an article on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich since we already have articles on peanut butter, jelly, and white bread.  Now I've gone & made myself hungry
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: This might not be a record particularly on AfD, but it certainly is a good candidate for record on total propososals and polls to delete/merge/redirect, especially when viewed in comparison to this article's age. Do you really have to succeed the 14 AfD polls for Daniel Brandt with 15 to 20 proposals to remove the material one way or another in just a few weeks? Just how much bloody noses of defeat does it take to warrant referring to ? Also
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Let's not play "nominate until the consensus goes my way" per  - the last nom was only 3 months ago and the reasoning is the same as before.  Cited and notable topic different from pedophilia and too large to be merged into that article anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)