Deletion of Adult sexual interest in children

Comment: Actually the value we use in our striving for neutrality is found at . Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: as clear POV fork.  Jokestress claims above that "someone who has...engaged in sexual behavior involving a child is not necessarily a pedophile".  Not sure I understand that.  A pedophile is http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:pedophile defined as "an adult who is sexually attracted to children".  So, the only way a person who engaged in sexual behavior with a child could ''not'' be a pedophile is if they engaged in that sexual behavior as a result of something ''other'' than a sexual attraction to the child.  What other reason could someone have for having sex with a child besides some form of sexual attraction?  I sense some kind of POV agenda being pushed with this article.  Jokestress didn't get her way at Pedophilia, and creating this |pointy article is the next step in trying to get her POV represented on WP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,702679,00.html This article in Der Spiegel notes how the subject matter here has historically been associated with certain political POVs, and past experience suggests it is reasonable to presume a  when an article has been created by someone unhappy with the pedophilia article.  That said, that presumption is rebuttable and well-referenced material added by veteran editors should not be deleted summarily.  The presumption is not rebutted here.  If adult sexual interest in children that does not reach the level of being a "preference" is notable then why isn't there an article for, say, sexual interest in one's own gender that does not reach the level of being a preference?  If one were to retort by pointing to the bisexuality article, I'd note that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per  and . The principle argument here for retention of the page is that there is a difference between the psychological disorder of pedophilia and all other sexual interest in children. This is true; some sexual abuse of children is situational, only, and doesn't carry an implication that the person involved is a classic pedophile. ''However'', we are not bound by the definitions exclusive to psychiatry. The real-world understanding and common definition of pedophilia is as ''any'' sexual interest in children, and this is how the subject is being treated in Wikipedia; as such, an article such as this, built on these principles, simply serves to present only ''one'' portion of Wikipedia's collective information on pedophilia in such a way that it represents POV. These citations and ideas would be harmless within the body of the Pedophilia article that exists now, given there is a massive weight of citations to the contrary, but separately they are academically unconscionable.It is disingenuous, also, to believe that these data are not being cherry-picked to represent a  of ideas. The sources we have are coming from a wildly varying group of publications, and I have more than a suspicion that the statements made were not intended to support the essential point of the article. The facts are not fringe, but their use in this article is; it's trying to make a point. I am more than willing to import some of the ideas presented here (that people who demonstrate interests commonly called pedophilic are not necessarily classic-case academic pedophiles) to the main article, but this article as a separate entity must go. —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:SYNTHESIS)