Deletion of Adult-child sex

Comment: Because adult-child sex is "''commonly'' known as child sexual abuse" does not deny its being ''uncommonly'' known another way.  There is a clear difference between denying the existence of a view and agreeing that it exists but refuting it.  The term ''child sexual abuse'' is a term that inherently denies that there is any other perspective on the issue.  That even one person believes that adult-child sex isn't abuse is simply not a germane topic for that article.  The term ''adult-child sex'' allows for the existence of the minority view that not all adult-child sex is abusive.  Pro-pedophile activism|pro-pedophile activists exist, but their views are completely out of place in an article on child sexual abuse.  To be sure, I agree that adult-child sex is child abuse, but to deny that there is an opposition populated by people like Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault is simply counterfactual.   The term ''adult-child sex'', because it focuses on the objective act, allows both views to come in contact with one another, where ''child sexual abuse'' does not.   This article makes clear which is the majority view and which is the view of a small minority, but it would be dangerous to pretend that that minority doesn't exist.  Giving |due weight to the views on a topic (rather than denying their existence) is what we're supposed to do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: There seems to be a significant pile-on of !votes due to perceived |POV issues.  First, what POV issues are in the article?  Simply saying POV doesn't actually identify any specific problem with the article.  Second, since the term ''adult-child sex'' is a neutral description of the act, wouldn't POV problems be resolved by editing the article rather than deleting it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: The term adult-child sex was http://groups.google.de/group/de.alt.jugendschutz/browse_thread/thread/5e34264423a97fef/6fb429122ca5c18a recommended by American scientists who found that a half of adult-child sexual relations were not abusive but consensual and even experienced as beneficial (gay singer Mark Medlock who seduced a 32-year-old in the natatorium when he was 8 is a prominent example) and that it is important to differentiate.  A modern encyclopedia should follow this differentiation.  The supporters of a deletion are lacking insight into this.  Merging into child sexual abuse is not an option as the word abuse is value-laden.  Merging into child sexuality is not an option since child sexuality is mainly directed towards oneself and other children and adults play a lesser role.  Merging into pedophilia is not an option since pedophilia only describes the sexual orientation and not the sexual act.   problems should be fixed in the article and not worsened through unjustified deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)