Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult sexual interest in children
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
— User:Chromancer, 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:POVFORK||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:SYNTHESIS (Wikipedia:Content forking)