The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Closing this early as there has been substantial community input and there's not a snowball's chance in hell of any non-delete outcome. The development and content of this article also raises WP:CHILDPROTECT issues: as the outcome of the AfD is inevitable there's no benefit in retaining this material on Wikipedia longer solely for the sake of bureaucracy.

Page title will also be salted. If there's ever a legitimate reason to recreate, this should be via discussion on an established article talkpage, at which time if consensus is established the salting can be removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add: An AfD participant has correctly asked for further clarification of this close. There was community consensus that this is a relatively fringe term which might justify a mention in related articles but does not justify a separate article separate from other terms and encyclopedic content related to the same concept. The AfD and related discussions (including the recent ANI thread) indicate some relevance to this sentence from WP:CHILDPRO: expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children. However WP:CFORK, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE were also relevant to this AfD. Hope that's helpful, and thanks to all those who contributed to this discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor-attracted person[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Minor-attracted person (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, specifically, was created as a result of this discussion to soft redirect to Wiktionary. Recently, an editor redirected it to Chronophilia#Chronophilias related to minors, reverted by the content creator, both justifying it with WP:BLAR. It was discussed multiple times, such as in a talk page, in WP:FT/N#Minor-attracted person, and the last AfD. I bring it here for another consensus, as the topic is controversial. Xdtp (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Psychology. Xdtp (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep or merge to Chronophilia. Source eval:

Academic sources

source title	description	journal	peer-reviewed
Pedophile, Child Lover, or Minor-Attracted Person? Attitudes Toward Labels Among People Who are Sexually Attracted to Children	States that MAP was used in 21 academic papers from 2017 to 2021 (year the paper was issued to the journal). WP:SIGCOV on etymology.	Archives of Sexual Behavior	yes
“We Do Exist”: The Experiences of Women Living with a Sexual Interest in Minors	Uses the term to refer to female pedohebephiles, justifies the use of the term. WP:SIGCOV on etymology and meaning.	Archives of Sexual Behavior	yes
“I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything”: Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People	Predominantly uses the term MAP over 'pedohebephile' and others. WP:SIGCOV on etymology.	Sexual Abuse (journal)	yes
Changing public attitudes toward minor attracted persons: an evaluation of an anti-stigma intervention	Ibid.	Journal of Sexual Aggression	yes
Non-Offending Minor-Attracted Persons: Professional Practitioners’ Views on the Barriers to Seeking and Receiving Their Help	Predominantly used the term. Says it can be used as a replacement for (pedo)hebephile	Journal of Child Sexual Abuse	yes
“I Despise Myself for Thinking about Them.” A Thematic Analysis of the Mental Health Implications and Employed Coping Mechanisms of Self-Reported Non-Offending Minor Attracted Persons	Besides map, also uses the term nomap. WP:SIGCOV on etymology.	Journal of Child Sexual Abuse	yes
Primary Health Professionals' Beliefs, Experiences, and Willingness to Treat Minor-Attracted Persons	Uses the term about 100 times. Also covers its meaning and the "ephebophile" controversy.	Archives of Sexual Behavior	yes
A Long Dark Shadow	WP:SIGCOV on etymology.	University of California Press	yes

Non-academic sources

Title	description	WP:GREL
A flag for pedophiles? It exists, but it is not a push for inclusion in the LGBT community	says word has been used by academic, child protective organizations and psychiatrists. WP:SIGCOV on etymology.	yes (Agence France-Presse)
FactCheck: The European Commission doesn't use the term ‘minor-attracted person’ instead of 'paedophile'	ibid. WP:SIGCOV on etymology.	not discussed (The Journal)

Non-academic sources covering non-etymological info about this term (controversies, etc.)

Title	description	WP:GREL
Who is Allyn Walker? ODU Professor Quits After Pedophilia Remarks Spark Backlash	/	mrel (Newsweek)
Police Scotland denies officially labelling paedophiles ‘minor-attracted people’	/	yes (The Independent)
Police Scotland release statement amid row over use of 'minor-attracted people' term		yes (Yahoo News)
Twitter accused of aiding child abuse by allowing 'explosion' of online paedophile communities	/	yes (The Telegraph)
Preply Survey: Americans Mixed on term "Minor-Attracted Persons" - B4U-ACT	Blog post.	not discussed
Don't fall for the 'groomer' slur - it's an old trick used to stir hatred of LGBTQ+ people	Says that the supposed inclusion of "MAPs" into LGBT pride is a hoax, as well as that the the term is used among psychologists.	not discussed (TheJournal.ie)

Though the topic of this page is controversial, it meets WP:GNG and has been covered by WP:Reliable sources (peer-reviewed scientific journals and WP:GREL sources).

As a regular editor who read the sources of that article, the only thing that I could find that is fringe or controversial about this matter is the inclusion of ephebophilia under the umbrella (apparently because of a Michael Seto paper from the mid 2010s). As for the term itself, it has been used among academics way before it became a controversial topic on social media in mid 2018 onwards. Neither the academic sources used in that article or the non-academic WP:GREL sources say that this term is fringe, but instead they do report that it has been commonly used among academics and mental health professionals (e.g. psychiatrists, social workers, anti-child sexual abuse organizations).

As for the idea that this term was being used to legalize child rape or anything like that, I could find no reliable sources making this claim. All websites saying this are TERF blogs (W4, Reduxx), alternative media (The Post Millenial) and Christian news websites. The absolute best thing I could find was this single 2022 paper published on the British Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and History (peer-reviewed) named A Case Study Via Sociolinguistic Analysis Of Covert Pro-Paedophilia Organisation Registered As A Child Protection Charity And Its Links To Paedophilia Enablers In Academia And Academic Propaganda, but either the person who wrote the article or the journal itself was apparently accused of defamation by an organization that they have accused of being "pro-pedophilia" in the paper. See here, the Naudé guy is the author of the paper. This paper was also banned from Academia.edu and is only available in an non-reputable journal called The PublicInsight. Using the term WP:Fringe to describe this paper would be an euphemism.

For the purpose of comparing this article to how it looked like during its 2021 AfD discussion, this is how the previous version of this page looked like then. It was a little dab, the content was significantly different compared to the current page. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — 22spears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note This Editor, who created the article in question, has been indefinitely blocked for pro-pedophilia POV pushing. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything relevant can be covered by a Wiktionary entry. The topic is known all over social media to be an attempted “rebranding” of pedophilia, but any mention of this gets ripped from the article consistently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurferSquall (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The topic is known all over social media to be an attempted “rebranding” of pedophilia..."

"Social media" is not a reliable source. The article clearly shows academic articles that use the term, and justifies why it is used by some mental health professionals. The fact that some people on social media say the term is an attempt to rebrand the rebrand pedophilia or legalize child rape is irrelevant. In some spaces, promotion of LGBTQ+ is "known all over social media" as an attempt to legalize pedophilia. This line of thinking does not justify deletion. R alvarez02 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just homophobia, when has that ever been true? SurferSquall (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that this term is associated with a some form of "rebranding" of pedophilia has been debunked by this (WP:GREL), this (WP:GREL) and this (WP:MREL) sources. As I had told you weeks ago, I have no problem covering fringe POVs on articles, but this theory is not just "fringe", it has been described by RS as a complete hoax. Besides, "social media" is not a reliable source; I ripped your edits from the article because they had no appropriate sourcing and were blatantly false. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources debunk this. They merely debunk any link between the LGBT community and pedophilia, and that link is indeed a hoax.

But the source we cite the most, Jahnke, says the intent behind the term is to remove the stigma associated with pedophilia, i.e. to "rebrand" it, or normalize it (though Jahnke also says that the new term is also stigmatized). DFlhb (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This. The source supports almost the opposite of what this article claims. SurferSquall (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "normalizing" and "destigmatizing" are not synonymous, even though they may appear similar. Everyone in the addiction recovery field wants to destigmatize alcoholism so as to encourage more alcoholics to seek treatment, but no academic in that field will ever claim that being an alcoholic is normal or non-problematic. Although destigmatizing pedohebephilia is more controversial, it is motivated by the exact same logic, and numerous academics in the field of CSA prevention support it. If more pedohebephiles seek mental help, that is not just useful for them personally, but also for society, as mandatory reporting laws are already in place to make sure that the ones that are dangerous get dealt with.Observer42436 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly inappropriate for you to attempt to delete before the Afd is closed SurferSquall. --Pokelova (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:BLUE. Many pedophiles have attempted to use this term to distance themselves from being called a pedophile. SurferSquall (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a circular argument. Surely you can see that? 86Sedan 13:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — 86sedan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@SurferSquall, please don't blank the article in the middle of the AfD dicusssion. You already have a history of unconstructive editings on that page. If you continue to disrupt the ways of things around here, you might get blocked. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic simply isn't notable enough for its own article. As much as you'd like it to be (which is weird) it does not warrant a whole article. SurferSquall (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One look at your user page tells me everything I need to know about you SurferSquall (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SurferSquall, you have acted highly inappropriately through this entire process. Deleting the article mid-AfD and veiled attacks on @22spears character do not help your case. R alvarez02 (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by another editor, several of this article’s sources do not support the article’s claim. I suggest you read carefully what the sources are actually stating. SurferSquall (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article shows extensive adherence to WP:Reliable, far more than some other existing articles that have remain untouched on Wikipedia. For instance, Aromanticism cites a Tumblr archive for the origin of the flag, but the same thing was scrutinized on this page. Additionally, it has been used in many academic articles, and significantly referenced in media. It is obvious that this article is being subjected to more scrutiny because of the bias of some editors.

The WP:BLAR stated: "If anywhere on the encyclopedia, there, but I don't think this has improved since the last time this went to AfD". This does not contain any supporting evidence for delation. the last AfD stated "Academic sources using this term suggest a high specialized, nuanced meaning and intention behind this term. This nuance and intention is not reflected by its use as a disambiguation page, which seems an inappropriate place for it. Rather, it may be more suitable being incorporated into the body text of larger articles in this topic area, where the deeper intended meaning can be explored." as one of the primary reasons for deletion. This article is not a disambiguation page anymore, if it once was. Additionally, the academic sources and controversy section shows that this term is not used by one author. R alvarez02 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — R alvarez02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• No comment.Speedy keep due to no deletion reason being provided. "Topic is controversial" is not a deletion reason. This is a regular WP:WORDISSUBJECT-type article about a notable phrase. There is a sufficient number of sources that cover the phrase as such in depth. Another example of such an article is Gay agenda.—Alalch E. 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to distance myself from this AfD due to there being a concern of pro-pedophilia off-wiki coordination, or something along those lines, and I don't currently have time to evaluate that concern and decide whether and how that would affect my position on what should be done.—Alalch E. 18:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons given above. --Pokelova (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the editor who made the redirect to Chronophilia (rather than pedophilia) a few months ago, it was obvious this topic had notability back then, if only someone would have put the work in. Since then, there have been further controversies around this subject commanding at least 50M impressions, and a great deal of misinformation from certain parts of the press. The answer is not to censor scholarship and amplify conspiracy theories. We assimilate the best available verifiable information on the topic, and publish it in one place so neutrals and bystanders may see past the narrative. Be that the narrative of the outrage mob, or the narrative of the activist pedophile. --86Sedan 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — 86sedan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• hesitant keep as notable. Wikipedia is not censored. The phrase might give me the creeps, but that's not a valid argument in a deletion discussion, and it should never become one. Same goes for a subject being controversial. that being said, the large number of SPA's involved with the topic is a good warning that this article might need some serious administrator eyes on it at all times. Closer should also note this discussion at WP:FRINGE. If further concerns about this article's quality are raised, my !vote switches to an immediate deployment of WP:TNT. We either need to cover this topic properly, or not at all. The space in between is a bad place to be. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we're still pretty far from that. DFlhb (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I didn't have much time to examine the article for flaws when I wrote this, so I relied purely on the prescence of sources, google scholar hits, and a quick scan of the text, none of which raised immediate issues. But I didn't have time for a more in-depth look, hence the "if any issues are raised" clause. Judging by the discussion surrounding this I think that clause of my argument has been triggered several times over here, and judging by the criticisms below I don't think the article should be allowed to exist in its current form. My comment here also caused one of these SPA's ( 86sedan, to be precise) to email me, asking me to also vote keep on a number of other articles they were presumably also involved with. Which is a very good way to make me change my !vote to Delete and salt for the foreseeable future. The article clearly has issues, and I think with the sheer volume of activity surrounding it chances are that if we turn it into a redirect instead we'll be here again within a shockingly short amount of time. This is an article that should only be able to be recreated under administrator oversight.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is well sourced and on a notable subject. Doxastic1000 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Doxastic1000 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Delete, needs WP:TNT at best, and the fact that the article (and now this AfD) has multiple recently-appearing SPAs involved with it is highly suspicious. Here, for instance, we see a good-faith editor had to remove puffery for the term. Other contributions from the SPAs in the topic area should also be checked closely wherever possible by people with time to do so. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this term does have some use in academia [1] especially within the last few years, I don't see how the term itself is notable enough to have an entire article dedicated to it, compared to the voluminous literature that does not use the term. Discussion of the term could probably warrants a mention in the paedophilia and possibly other related articles, but not much more. As noted by others here, the involvements of SPAs (and infrequently active editors like Doxastic1000 above) in this articles creation and AfD is concerning and must be considered by the closer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Talking about other articles, this article was started after a section I had created to cover this word on Chronophilia became obnoxiously large and I decided to put the contents relating to this term in an article of its own. The content from this article could be merged to Chronophilia, considering DFlhb's suggestion that this article is too wordy, but I'm not sure. 🔥 22spears 🔥 02:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I support merging. It's probably the best solution. This or drafting and restoring the soft redirect. Xdtp (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to merging the contents to Chronophilia. Casdmo (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — Casdmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. I'm with Crossroads and Hemiauchenia here. WP:TNT at best. This seems more like a WP:POVFORK for pedophilia than an independently notable topic. And given the presence of SPAs and low-edit count users who have come out of the woodwork to !vote "keep", it appears likely that we're dealing with WP:MEATPUPPETry of some kind. Generalrelative (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Seven academic sources are presented in the source survey above. Only two actually analyze the term-as-a-term (the first, and Long Dark Shadow). The second, fifth, sixth and seventh sources doesn't discuss the term itself at all, while the third and fourth sources do it superficially in just one paragraph. The apparent presence of SPAs on such an explosive topic is an immediate red flag (not to mention that my removal of puffery was reverted and replaced with more puffery, with a ridiculous personal attack to boot). The lead and "Variants" section take 8 paragraphs to say what could be written in two sentences: Minor-attracted person is a term intended as a less stigmatizing alternative to pedophile or hebephile (and sometimes ephebophile). The term is preferred by some pedophiles who want to "embrace their sexuality as part of their identity", and by some academics who argue that stress related to social stigma can be obstacles to the seeking of professional help, and increase the risk of committing sexual crimes (my own paraphrase, and the quote is from the Jahnke paper). That statement needs to be properly contextualized with MEDRS, which this article fails to do. The "Usage among persons sexually attracted to minors" section relies overwhelmingly on one source, which has numerous methodological limitations, as the source admits (notably, a non-representative sample of purely self-reports from online forums). That leaves the Reception and Controversy sections, which are trivia/WP:NOTNEWS. There is no point in bringing up obscure LGBT conspiracy theories simply to debunk them, when bringing them up would normalize them at least as much as debunk them. WP:TNT is also a reasonable argument. The lead strongly fails NPOV. Besides the puffery, it even fails MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE, since it presents it as an innocuous "umbrella term", rather than a term preferred by pedophiles, intended to de-stigmatize pedophilia (per Jahnke). Public reaction to the term has been "intense" and negative (again... per Jahnke), yet our lead only say it's "rarely [...] used in popular discourse", and only bring up criticism of the term in the context of what we describe as hoaxes and misinformation. Quite misleading, and a clear POV issue. DFlhb (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even in the Jahnke source, discussion of the term-as-a-term is incidental to the paper, not the main focus of the paper, so that just leaves Walker. DFlhb (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It would have been a POV-fork of pedophilia etc. if it covered psychiatric disorders under this title, but it does not, instead it covers a term—it is then a question of whether the article does this well. The term-is-a-term is a notable subject. There are other sources already in the article which contain significant coverage of the term, such as afp and thejournal.ie. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.—Alalch E. 06:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Like Hemiauchenia wrote, the term has some use in academia, especially in recent years. Whether this literature is "voluminous" does not matter, so long as it suffices to construct an article. For example, there's not a great volume of literature on the Suteans, yet there's enough that Wikipedia has an article on them. In RS, the category of attraction to minors includes more than just pedophilia; therefore, an article on this term cannot be dismissed as WP:POVFORK of pedophilia. Other than that, the motions to delete seem to be based more on second-guessing the users who are contributing to the article, than on the merits of the article itself. Concern about SPAs is reason to watch the article closely, but not reason to delete it. I agree with Crossroads that this edit removes fluff to follow WP:NPOV. Casdmo (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — Casdmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Blank-and-redirect to Chronophilia#Chronophilias_related_to_minors per WP:DEL-REASON#5, or delete per the same. This is a WP:CFORK—plain and simple—and the so-called "academic" sourcing that forms the basis of the article is almost entirely composed of works that make WP:FRINGE claims. Take for example Allyn Walker, who voluminously argues that pedophilia is a sexual orientation akin to homosexuality (in a pro-pedophilia way, not in an anti-gay way) in their many works. These include many of the works that the creator claims contribute towards notability, including A Long Dark Shadow, "I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything": Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People, "I’m Not like That, So Am I Gay?" The Use of Queer-Spectrum Identity Labels Among Minor-Attracted People. The page creator also does not distinguish between use and mention in their description of the academic sources above—mere use of a term does not warrant an article about it, and articles that merely use a term and only provide a trivial explanation of it do not contribute weight towards making a fork. Rather, we should avoid running a WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK, and should simply convert this to a redirect pointing at the appropriate page on chronophilias. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are multiple academic sources [2][3][4] from the past 10 years from different authors and institutions that have characterized hebepedophilia as a sexual orientation or preference. Regardless, this fact that Walker came to this conclusion does not discount their other also peer-reviewed research. Saying this research is 'so-called academic sourcing' is an inaccurate statement, as all these sources are peer-reviewed academic sources from credible journals. Please see WP:FRINGE/ALT. R alvarez02 (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are trying to argue that the notion that hebepedophilia being a sexual orientation is somehow anything other than pure WP:FRINGE, do you have any current or future plans to attempt to add this claim or line of thought to the sexual orientation article? Genuinely, it seems like a necessary consequence of your line of argumentation, and yet I cannot possibly imagine that this is your intent. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 10:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I do not have any plan to do this. Despite there being some authors that have characterized it as a sexual orientation, it is not the scientific consensus. If it were to be included anywhere, it would have to be pointed out that most sexologists do not describe hebepedophilia as a sexual orientation. Although, I have not looked extensively at authors who have investigated this and come to that conclusion.

  My point was that this opinion is not pseudoscience. It is an alternative theoretical formulation, and Walker's adherence to this theory does not discount their other works by association. R alvarez02 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that this so-called "alternative theoretical formulation" has been in existence since the time of NAMBLA, and yet has remained on the fringes ever since—just as homeopathy remains on the fringes despite having been advocated by a small and persistent group for a good bit of time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a straw man. homeopathy is not an equivalent comparison. For one, it lacks all peer-reviewed scientific evidence to even be considered an alternative theory. That is why it is pseudoscience. See Homeopathy#Lack of scientific evidence. Additionally, NAMBLA claims that adult/child sexual activity is harmless, which is a very separate concept from the possibility that pedohebephilic attraction is an age-based sexual orientation. If it were a sexual orientation, that would not be justification for it being okay or legal either way... but this is getting sidetracked. R alvarez02 (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus thusfar...

So of note might be absent previous users who took part in the discussion when this article was a disambiguation page, prior to the overhaul. These, [regardless of the opinions they gave] are:

--86Sedan 08:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ignoring likely socks and canvassed accounts there was consensus to delete before you made this, there is consensus now even including them. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar mentions of terms in the name of Wikipedia articles since 2019:

• "Minor-attracted" - 316. Ours: Minor-attracted person
• Aromantic - 1410. Ours: Aromanticism
• Transgender youth - 13.100. Ours: Transgender youth
• Cybersex trafficking - 93. Ours: Cybersex trafficking
• Deviant sexual intercourse - 55. Ours: Deviant sexual intercourse

As a guide: Total Google results were approaching 1/10th of "transgender youth", and more than some other topics we cover. It seems to be notable, if controversial. It is not out of the ordinary for Wikipedia to have a moderately sized, well-sourced article on such a topic. --86Sedan 10:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — 86sedan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep This article is even more robustly sourced than the version from the previous AfD. The term and controversy surrounding its use has become ubiquitous enough that it cannot simply be covered in a Wiktionary entry. Redirecting/merging to another article like Chronophilia would place WP:UNDUE weight for this subject on that article. The WP:SIGCOV of this subject far surpasses the standard of many articles that no one would question as being notable, especially with the academic and non academic sources taken together. The term has become less WP:FRINGE since the last AfD, and an article adhering to WP:NPOV standards seems to be the best way of covering the subject without censoring it entirely. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wiktionary:minor-attracted person. After lurking in this AfD for several days, my hopes for WP:NPOV coverage of this topic have been ruined. It seems this topic cannot be covered at this time without implicit advocacy in violation of WP:CHILDPRO. While a delete and salt seems to be the likely outcome of the AfD, I'm still going to advocate for restoration of the crosswiki redirect at this diff, since the term is obviously searchable. It doesn't seem that this encyclopedia can handle to complications of an article at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an excellent point that all the attention coming in from Tucker Carlson, Greg Abbott, Jack Posobiec, Tulsi Gabbard, etc and even more whacky social media/one world government conspiracy theories, would be directed towards Chronophilia or Pedophilia. Both of these would do a disservice to the topic, and absolutely hand the incentive to agents of paranoia. They would in turn be able to gain an advantage by monopolizing verifiable information about the political and academic background to this topic, and twisting it to their own agenda. So in essence, this article works like a fact-check. 86Sedan 12:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Many have already mentioned policy and reasoning I was going to say. I will add, I'm not seeing much in the way of instructive value to this being an article. Deep down, it's just a term, not a concept. It's inclusive of several concepts in its meaning, but is not itself a unique concept. I feel that the use of keyword searches to find occurrences of a term "in the wild" does not change this. Nor do I find keyword hits to be a compelling argument given the nature of the internet to copy strings of text over and over, sometimes millions of times, given the sociological pattern of viral phenomenon, which can give great coverage to trivial or fringe matters, to detriment of truth or reason. Even google scholar is not immune, as what passes for scholarly can sometimes be quite loose, as well as areas of academia that study internet phenomena themselves, instead of the topics found in those phenomena. The suspicious new-yet-experienced-editor SPAs acting on this article also cannot be ignored, given the troubled history of pedophilia-related articles on wikipedia.Legitimus (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• what passes for scholarly can sometimes be quite loose. In a similar vein, "Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common" (9 May 2023). Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 01:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The redirect if any should be Child_sexual_abuse#Pedophilia or Child_sexual_abuse#Prevention. Regardless of the legitimacy, acceptance, or associated WP:FRINGE issues, the academic sources all present the topic within that context. No halfway respectable journal would do otherwise. It's a claimed strategy to prevent Child sexual abuse, that is clear from the academic sources, and in that article the WP:FRINGELEVEL can be clarified.

Instead the reader is led to a "culture war" article, lacking proper context and where editors can import WP:NOTNEWS sources. The "reception" voices are now such as Tucker Carlson. Lauren Boebert, and Libs of TikTok, and some nice "controversy" sections to edit war over. fiveby(zero) 18:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: The target of the redirect being CSA was already discussed. It was commented that CSA article does not discuss the term. Not to mention it's an umbrella term (aka hypernym), it includes NOMAPs (now labeled as anti-contact), not just sex offenders. Xdtp (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child_sexual_abuse#Pedophilia discusses use of pedophile, Child_sexual_abuse#Prevention, Child_sexual_abuse#Treatment. This is exactly the context in which the academic sources discuss the term. Add the educational content there. Wikipedia should be for readers, not some playground for SPAs. fiveby(zero) 19:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per the previous AfD. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:E9F1:6989:B39E:7AA4 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:E9F1:6989:B39E:7AA4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete and redirect. Synonyms should be redirected, not WP:POVFORKed. Bon courage (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's nothing more than another term for pedophile and the "article" is a WP:POVFORK. I was ready to write a longer comment until I read Legitimus' response. It dots the i's and crosses the t's of what I was already thinking. Someone behind the Wikipedia curtain needs to investigate who sang the siren song and enlisted SPAs. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One reason any serious editor of this topic conducts their activity from a private SPA, is the ease with which WP:POVFORK is invoked at the mere mention of a controversial research subject. Not to mention, death threats (including those sanctioned by a major social media platform) against researchers in this particular area.

  So in essence, you answer your own question. 86Sedan 02:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems pretty clear that the usage in academia is meant to just be an alternative term for things such as pedophilia and chronophilia. A euphemism, if you will, to avoid the connotations of the original terms and to allow for proper academic rigor to be used. That doesn't make it its own independent concept, however, and the content herein really is just duplicating content found elsewhere, such as in those articles. The article also seems to be being used as a coatrack for other topics, which also appears to be the reason for the many SPAs voting keep above. Silverseren^C 16:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to pedophilia, which this is not meaningfully distinct from. casualdejekyll 18:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: The nominator of this AfD has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, this shouldn't have any bearing on the validity of the AfD, as at this point numerous users in good standing have voted to delete. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The term does seem to be used in academia. See: Levenson & Grady, "Preventing Sexual Abuse: Perspectives of Minor-Attracted Persons About Seeking Help," in Sex Abuse (Dec. 2019). No opinion about whether this constitutes a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems rather telling that the abstract doesn't itself use pedophilia, But pedophilia is still one of the five keywords used for the paper, pretty clearly showing that MAP is being used as a euphemistic alternative term for the same thing. Silverseren^C 21:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is clearly another term for paedophilia. We don't have two articles on the same subject just because two different words are used for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I agree the subject is not a separate concept from the chronophilias it refers to and would support merging it with Chronophilia were it a term with not such a history, I concur with Qwaiiplayer that merging it would cause undue emphasis on the term in an article it was merged with as mentioning the term warrants combating misinformation about it, which can't be easily condensed. With all the attention this term is getting, it's beneficial to have quickly accessible information about it available, as opposed to burying it in another article. Queer Linguist (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Queer Linguist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep for reasons explained by User:22Spears and User:86Sedan.-Strippy6 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Strippy6 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

  Look, whoever is behind these socks and old accounts, please don't mingle my name with your operations. You are not salvaging the article, you're just muddying the waters and making the people who voted for "keep" look bad. This is not a poll, it's a discussion. Stop creating new accounts just to say nothing of substance. The world is not going to end if this article gets merged or deleted. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that is a fair characterization of the above editor, who appears to have a long history (at least chronologically) of contributions on various subjects. Their sudden appearance would suggest to me, he or she has seen the discussion here at an external resource for whatever reason, and decided to log in after however many years.

  Otherwise, I note one account that has obviously been created to provide a Keep opinion, and one IP editor providing a Delete opinion. Paranoia around pedophile sockfarming is a routine occurrence here, since the 00s, which of course completely ignores all the other special interest groups (Information State, any one?) with a far more successful history of meddling. That paranoia is used to intimidate editors into withholding or recanting their opinions, lest they be accused of being part of the big pedophile boogeyman conspiracy.

  Meanwhile, established editors have not exactly covered themselves in glory with their behavior off-page, some of which amounts to outright vandalism, and following editors from this discussion elsewhere. The average opinion in favor of Deleting the content of the article under discussion amounts to a kneejerk reaction against the subject and complete refusal to assess the topic for notability; to simply read the article. The above-average opinion in favor of Deleting the content amounts to a notability/policy argument that pushes the boundaries of credibility, given what does appear to pass the same tests.

  And the point remains, that if we cede that Number-1 position in Google, readers will be ending up on a woefully inadequate Wiktionary page, or visiting other sources to find the same, verifiable information next time this topic explodes on Social Media. These will be (as can be established from 1 or 2 minutes browsing the results) primarily fringe - oriented conservative news sites and organizations that use the subject of this article as part of their mission. Giving conspiracy theorists the distinction of being the first to relay verifiable information to an audience, emboldens their narrative, that much is obvious. 86Sedan 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  who appears to have a long history (at least chronologically) of contributions on various subjects.

??? Strippy6 has about 30 edits total, with the majority of those being a decade ago. They're miles away from meeting the requirement to be an extended confirmed editor and are barely above autoconfirmed as it is. Silverseren^C 02:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The stigma of pedophilia runs so deep that those who can consider the subject rationally are usually reluctant to speak for fear of backlash. Two editors in this very AfD have already expressed concern for their own personal reputations. One has even added a strikethrough to their initial remarks to distance themself from the subject. In current social conditions, it's not only perfectly fine, but expected, to leap to conclusions and assume the worst whenever the topic of attraction to minors is mentioned; anyone who does otherwise is considered suspect. Only one perspective is safe to express; other perspectives involve risk. We're seeing it play out in real time on this AfD. In a tongue-in-cheek manner, I say this is why we can't have nice things. Casdmo (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — Casdmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep If this is any kind of fork, then so are articles such as faggot and tired and emotional. There is no ambiguity in the article about the fact that its topic is a term, not the thing that term refers to. In a sense, the term MAP is itself a real-life analogue of a POV fork, in that people have used it to discuss something in a fringe light that would be taboo if the usual word was used. To 22spear’s credit, the article does not repeat this error and instead attempts to document it. The question is whether the term meets GNG, requiring that it is mentioned, as well as used in reliable sources, hopefully going beyond general collections of pedophilic euphemisms. (Note that using a term does not exclude a source from also being able to mention it.) Previous comments on this page have gathered enough of this kind of “etymological” coverage to demonstrate notability. As to 22spear being an SPA, I don’t believe this points towards bad faith, since their articles tend to provide balanced and well-sourced coverage of their topics, though it is off putting that their user page includes a gif that could be seen as a reference to popotan. small jars tc 15:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's Caramelldansen, anyone who was on the internet 15 years ago knows what it is but I doubt very many know of its origins. I don't think you can read that much into it. --Pokelova (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's Popotan via Caramelldansen, so it's ambiguous. I would like to assume good faith, and that its inclusion is either nothing to do with Popotan, or that it's just innocent edginess if it is, but this kind of ambiguity is exactly what tends to make a good dog whistle. Our article on Popotan is surprisingly quiet about the issue, but you can easily see its connection to these topics by reading the premise of the game. If I were 22spears I would have removed this gif as soon as I saw this nomination to avoid the potentially unintentional but still tasteless association. small jars tc 17:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're assuming they had any idea of the origin. They would have absolutely no reason to remove it in the extremely likely scenario that they didn't know. IMO they still don't have any reason to, since the meme is so utterly abstracted from its source that it's frankly a stretch to make a connection to this. --Pokelova (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. I am probably being overly paranoid but still felt the gif should be pointed out. small jars tc 17:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any comment germane to the deletion of the article in question, but I feel that this implication must be addressed, and I do not think that the image needs to be "pointed out". Caramelldansen is a widely beloved and completely benign Internet meme consisting of a drawing of two girls dancing to a pop song; whatever issues existed with the user in question were totally independent of this. jp×g 16:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"totally independent"? seems a strange assertion. Surely there is some connectedness between this image right next to some text about "riding dick"? I'd have thought that would have rung anybody's alarm bell ... Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My problem was that the image was tasteless in context, and I'm glad that it has since been removed from the user page. I have avoided making any assertions about the specific intent behind it here. I should probably stop even looking at this AfD after submitting this reply, since some of my comments have become slightly too emotional and a user has asked me to climb down from badgering people. small jars tc 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@small jars, 22spears is a single purpose account and that purpose is to portray pedophiles in a positive light and critics of pedophiles in a negative light. 22spears hijacked a redirect to create an article on the disputed term "minor-attracted person". They created the article Predator Poachers which reads as an attack page (although likely deservedly so). They excised large portions of Operation Underground Railroad and had the article on the founder Tim Ballard deleted. They created the less-than-neutral Stigma of pedophilia which should be merged into pedophilia where it belongs. They created a biography of Allyn Walker, one of the proponents of the term "minor attracted person". They added links to a blog post by notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll. They have a draft in their userspace which is a biography of Todd Nickerson, who is associated with the "virtuous pedophile" movement. If you actually take the time to go through their contributions, it is clear that this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV. MrPinkingShears (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point out that in their two edits to add content to the biography of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll, 22spears refers to them as "Tom" in their edits, twice, and as both "Tom" and "Thomas" in their edit summaries. This suggests to me that 22spears personally knows O'Carroll, but I will let them explain it for themselves. MrPinkingShears (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — MrPinkingShears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, Wikipedia really is exceeding its own high bar, this time. Julie Godforsaken Bindel knows Tom O'Carroll personally. Send her to the gallows. 86Sedan 19:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's crazy how everything that could go wrong in an AfD went wrong in this one. The canvassing, socks, the nom being banned, and now this account that only has 4 edits outside this AfD casually showing up to accuse me of personally knowing Tom O'Carroll of all things and shilling for Allyn Walker. I don't even care anymore, even if this article somehow survives, it's not worth it to have to deal with this level of maliciousness that shows up daily on this side of Wikipedia. If you want to know something about me, just hit me up on my talk page and we can civilly talk; it's crazy how most people who have a problem with me, like you and that Bhfg guy, will do anything but calmly try to have an actual conversation with me and ask me questions. The reason why I joined this website was to write about things that I commonly read about, not to participate in gossip wars and petty social media-ish internet beefs. All I do in this website is get a search engine, find good sources and transcribe what they say (and no, it is not POV-pushing if you predominantly write about one or two topics, Pink, I recommend that you read WP:NPOV). I know that this practice is not well liked among the conspiracy-minded, but still. 🔥 22spears 🔥 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@22spears Your use of someone's first name in your edits gave me the impression that you either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them. That would explain why you refer to them by their first name, so familiarly. I didn't see you call Allyn Walker "Allyn" or James Cantor "James". It wasn't meant to be an accusation of wrongdoing. Since you seem very open to questions - do you know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll? MrPinkingShears (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using this fact to argue WP:COI is bordering on paranoid. I would put the use of "Tom" in an ES down to nothing other than the fact that it's shorter than "O'Corroll," and doesn't have any of its pesky last-name orthography to type. small jars tc 21:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that 22spears has a conflict of interest, nor am I paranoid. I have gone through their edits (as anyone can) and I have formed an opinion about their editing based on that analysis. I haven't implied that they are a pedophile (or speculated about images on their user page). I merely pointed out that they used someone's first name in both edits and edit summaries related to notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll, which they didn't do in any other biography that they edited. MrPinkingShears (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't "merely point out", you clearly inferred that it is likely that they either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them, in relation to their editing of O'Carrolls article, which is nothing other than an accusation of COI. small jars tc 22:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing someone is not necessarily indicative of a conflict of interest. If it was, I suspect a lot of Wikipedia editors would be in trouble. MrPinkingShears (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're far off topic now, but you should probably read the policy on this. A disclosed COI is not always a problem; an undisclosed one, which this would be, is. small jars tc 22:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you've argued is rationale for why the article should be deleted. Whether 22spears is an SPA or not is largely irrelevant. Please see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account#If you are in a discussion with someone who edits with appearance of being a single-purpose account. Mainly: "Focus on the subject matter, not the person.". The implication of this reply is verging on a personal attack. R alvarez02 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R alvarez02, my comments are about the edits that 22spears has made and not about them personally. I have reviewed the edits and determined that 22spears is pushing a pro-pedophile point of view. Anyone is welcome to go through the same edits and come to their own conclusion. You are also a single-purpose account, with all of your edits related to pedophilia. There is nothing wrong with being a single-purpose account, but when a single-purpose account pushing a pro-pedophilia view is supported by other single-purpose accounts with low edit counts such as yourself, there is probably reason to dig deeper. MrPinkingShears (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small jars, the article digs this stuff out from an academic fringe, which prevents NPOV (an unfortunate loophole in WP:PARITY). Almost no academic source provides significant coverage of the term-as-term, and the non-academic sources are superficial WP:NOTNEWS cruft.

The term was coined by B4U-ACT, an organization that refuses to say whether child abuse is good or bad. Per Semantic Scholar, the top journal where the term is used is Archives of Sexual Behavior, which many academics are boycotting for promoting fringe science and for ethical misconduct. The academic paper we cite the most, Jahnke, relies on the premise that the only valid label is whichever self-label pedophiles like best. Jahnke say that pedophilia is not undesirable nor pathological, and that Both qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that people who are sexually attracted to children prefer to embrace their sexuality as part of their identity and want this to be reflected in the professional discourse as well (emphasis mine). Jahnke are simply obliging. That's the term's purpose, and due to the fringe sourcing, that's the only stuff we'll be able to cover here, and that's absolutely a POV fork. The "stigma" stuff might sound fine and dandy, but it's used by some as cover to promote abuse[5][6][7] (see, the WP:PARITY loophole in action. I had to dig out a communist newspaper and foreign sources) DFlhb (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. IMO the news coverage, rather than (fringe) academic coverage, of the term and its associated controversies are both the kernel of the notability, and the only reason almost anybody will have heard of the topic or be looking for an article to read on it. NOTNEWS does not apply as the article is neither a) original reporting b) about a particularly recent or short-lived story or c) written in an unencyclopedic news style.

2. That's the term's purpose, and due to the fringe sourcing, that's the only stuff we'll be able to cover here, and that's absolutely a POV fork – Your fears are a result of disregard for the use–mention distinction: Yes, this term is/has been used for bad purposes, but by covering them, we do not necessarily endorse them, but are in fact able to prevent such deceptions through neutral information. (If the article doesn't do this well enough, it simply needs cleanup) It would not be a POV fork unless it were directly parroting what these research subjects said: even this “fringe” piece of academic writing (which seems to be from an RS journal) does not go so far, but only reports on their feelings. small jars tc 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by covering them, we do not necessarily endorse them We're not covering them. Seems like you didn't read my reply, nor my first post here. DFlhb (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and your response to my comment. I have not read your own comment. small jars tc 02:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or re-imagine as Minor-attracted person (pejorative) or similar. The mere existence of this article, presenting as if this is a valid term, is pedophilia advocacy. Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This article does not give the overall impression that this is a "valid term" in all uses, though it does explain the (non-zero) extent to which it has been used in a valid academic context, as a necessary background for discussing controversies and abuses of the term. I am all for reworking the lede to more clearly indicate the pejorative and at other times euphemistic uses of the term from the start of the article, but doing this by adding a parenthesised qualifier to the title is against WP:TITLEDAB, since it would not be distinguishing from any other existing article. small jars tc 09:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DFlhb's analysis above --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Pedophila, per WP:POVFORK - Alison ^talk 05:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Bon courage and AndyTheGrump. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And Salt per WP:CHILDPROTECT ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AndyTheGrump et al (or redirect). It's a synonym or near-synonym, and we don't have separate articles for synonyms. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Cited on a pederast messageboard.

After a thorough search, including likely places organized "pedophile activism" goes down, this is all I could find:

(Redacted)

In a resigned tone, it mentions selective deletionism (this is a completely valid point) and the fact we give Hitler's dog and varied gender topics ample coverage. This is hardly evidence of muh organized "pro-pedophile" activism we hear about from prophets of doom such as the now-banned editor in the discussion above.

Sure, they probably have a RocketChat or any number of discord channels to organize this kind of thing, but it's not like Wikipedia deletionists don't have access to the same tools for canvassing (and the distinct advantage of aged accounts to back it up) see for example the 5 delete opinions within 5 hours above this very comment.

The compromise solution (completely unnecessary) is probably going to be something like this:

Redirect to chronophilia#Controversy surrounding development of language

Under this heading, we would very briefly mention the body of work cited by B4U-ACT, Nottingham Trent University, etc, and then go into considerable detail with respect to the resulting controversies, and how they came about. --86Sedan 08:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The term is predominantly used by mental health professionals, academics, and child advocacy organizations (John’s Hopkins’ The Moore Center for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse, Association for Sexual Abuse Prevention, The Global Prevention Project, etc.). The purpose of using the term is to help foster a less stigmatizing environment to get these people help before they offend, and to prevent recidivism/reoffending. It also covers not only pedophilia, but also hebephilia and maybe even ephebophilia. So it’s an all-encompassing term that’s more accurate and precise than the colloquial use of “pedo”. The article is also useful in that it debunks misinformation on the topic that the public has been exposed to through various right-wing media outlets. Observer42436 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sickening attempt to rename or water down from the meaning of pedophilia. no way. - Roxy the dog 09:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entire category for euphemisms Roxy, you don't have to like them but they exist and are talked about in sociolinguistic settings. Other people have given legitimate reasons for their beliefs that the page should be deleted, agree or disagree, but I do not see your argument as legitimate. --Pokelova (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be silly. A whole article on a euphamism for pedophilia. you need an attitude adjustment. If I change my reply to include all the very sensible delete ivotes, from incredibly experienced Users I see here would that make you withdraw your silly comment, Hmmmm - Roxy the dog 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase, MAP, is itself a sickening attempt to rename or water down from the meaning of pedophilia. By deleting an article that documents this attempt, and allows people encountering the term for the first time to understand the real history behind it, we are only enabling the abuse to continue. small jars tc 12:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt The use of the term can be included in the pedophilia article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support either salting, or, if we redirect, full-protecting the redirect and salting the non-hyphenated alternative spelling. If we redirect, the page should be deleted and redirected from scratch so the page history isn't kept (due to the evidence I posted at ANI that people identifying as "pro-MAPs" have started linking to the Wikipedia article for advocacy). DFlhb (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether MAPs find the article useful in their advocacy is largely irrelevant to us and to this discussion, in much the same way I told another user recently that the photos of nude children in our article on Puberty would stay regardless of whether a pedophile found them arousing. Letting a fringe dictate what you delete seems equally bad as letting them dictate what is written. --Pokelova (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely is relevant, and the fact is that deleting (and especially salting) this article will serve the purposes of no one better than it serves pedophiles and abusers, who wish to continue using this term to organise without the kind of scrutiny our coverage can provide, and to lesser extent the interests of homophobes who wish to use it as a basis for conspiracy theories. The article and its author might be questionable enough that we need to return to square one and rewrite the article, but it is notable and absolutely needs to exist as a matter of ethics. small jars tc 13:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As a WP:POVFORK. As AndyTheGrump mentioned, this is clearly just another term for pedophilia. Also support salting. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but do not salt: The article is blatantly inappropriate in its current state, but there could be a legitimate reason to have an article covering the term pedophiles are attempting to rebrand under. I would also support blanking and redirecting to either CSA/Pedophilia or Pedophilia. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear POV fork. If the term exists, it only exists to describe Pedophilia, so a redirect may be appropriate iff people may be using it as a search term, regardless, it should be salted and/or protected as a redirect to prevent recreation. --Jayron32 14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is like saying "if the term faggot exists, it only exists to describe homosexuality, so a redirect may be appropriate," except that MAP is not only notable as a roundabout slur for LGBT people, but also, simultaneously, as a euphemism/dog whistle among actual pedophiles. small jars tc 14:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't though; but you keep trying to deflect legitimate concerns by bringing up unrelated analogies. --Jayron32 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The analogy is only illustrative. The point is that, being both a euphemism and a kind of slur, this is a term with a lot of independent connotations and notability. Redirecting is giving insufficient weight to its history and ongoing usage. small jars tc 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I suggest another key point, small jars, that badgering people is not going to get you anywhere? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to AGF, but it seems that either everyone claiming that this is a fork hasn't even looked at the article, or I have an extremely wrong idea of what a fork is. small jars tc 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

• Delete We organize our articles based on what things are, not what they're called. I think DFlhb's analysis is accurate. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

several users blocked for advocacy in violation of the Wikipedia:Child protection policy.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep Minor-attracted person is distinct from pedophile both in meaning and in usage. A pedophile has a primary sexual attraction towards prepubescent minors, and only about 1-5% of the male population have this attraction. A MAP includes anyone who experiences sexual attraction towards people under 18, which is a far broader category. Equally important, the colloquial understanding of pedophile is that it means a child abuse – even one who is not attracted to children. MAP does not carry the same imputation, as it clearly refers only to attraction, not to criminal acts. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Note that the above user is a long-dormant account, showing up just to vote here. Also note that past edits such as "Agreed about the need for revision to the child protection policy to reflect the fact that an editor can't be blocked just because of a sexual attraction towards children, unless they act on that attraction by advocating child abuse." should be construed as clear pro-pedophile advocacy. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Not relevant and misleading. You failed to point out that Jeremy Malcolm runs a child protection organization below that, saying "the current state of the art in our field acknowledges that there are pedophiles who actually are just as staunchly opposed to child abuse as anyone else, despite their own very unfortunate sexual interest". You can see their website here: (Redacted) (Not doxxing, it's listed on their profile). It's clear they are actually dedicated to child protection, not pro-pedophilia advocacy. User:R Alvarez02 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] No, you do not get to strike that comment. How haven’t you been banned yet for your clear pro-pedofile advocacy? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] It's an incorrect comment. Saying "should be construed as clear pro-pedophile advocacy." is very misleading given the author of the comment runs a child protection organization. At the very least, the last sentence should be striked due to it making a pretty absurd accusation. R alvarez02 (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] I made the mistake of clicking that link and reading some of Mr. Malcolm’s vile content. He’s actually advocating for less censorship and fewer restrictions in these areas. Everyone supporting this page with a Keep should be thoroughly examined and removed from Wikipedia. I’ll now distance myself from this conversation. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] This is a pretty cut-and-dry personal attack, saying "Mr. Malcolm’s vile content", referring to an editor. R alvarez02 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Note that I am a professional in this field, thank you very much. I am weighing in because this is one of the articles that is squarely within the field of my expertise. I will thank you not to cast aspersions on my motivations. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] I am a professional in this field, Yea, that was my take, too. Zaathras (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] It’s different from pedophile because it also encompasses ephebophiles. The end. Dronebogus (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:POVFORK and abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't know about any specific individuals, but it's interesting to see how many supporters of this (and related) content claim to be professionals in the field - it seems everyone is a researcher, a therapist, or whatever... and everyone is only interested in protecting the children. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt POV fork, advocacy, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, blah blah blah probably at least 10 other reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsure about SALT. Incredibly creepy attempt to normalize pedophelia. Delete per POVFORK, CHILDPROTECT, etc. etc. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as a creepy, child protection policy-violating POVFORK. There's already an article on the subject. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect (to an appropriate place). Given various standard of protection and WP:UNDUE, WP:DICTDEF, and WP:PAGEDECIDE, a standalone page doesn't serve our readers or the encyclopedia at this time. Unsure about SALTing. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. I voted keep when this was a dab page, but it isn't one anymore, and it's clear from both the article itself and everything above that this article is and will always be a content fork, one extremely vulnerable to POV-pushing, that will require constant oversight and upkeep. Everyone's time would be better spent doing something else. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An article's topic being contentious does not condemn it to inevitable exploitation by POV pushers. We have various levels of page protection for a reason. I do not see the work of countering dangerous pedophilic and homophobic propaganda with neutral coverage as a less worthwhile effort than many others. It will be hard with this article but we are already making some progress. small jars tc 23:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, just the fact that something is contentious isn't a reason to just get rid of it just to save us some headaches. THIS particular one, however, isn't really a "topic" in itself. It is just a soft-serve, nice way of saying "pedophile". Zaathras (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll just say it: I'm 1000% cool with invoking WP:IAR and purging this nonsense to the depths with no redirect and salting so that this doesn't even appear in history. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What if we cut out all of the sentences written by blocked accounts and revdel? small jars tc 07:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a nice way of saying “pedophile” with a bloody long history. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this term. Though 22spears distorted things by mainly citing academic sources neutral or in favour of the term (and I have already revealed my own idiocy by trying to defend their good faith), there is academic criticism of it going back a fairly long time. This criticism includes at least one paper that has been attacked on a legal basis by one of the very groups behind the popularisation of this rhetoric. It has also been the basis of multiple damaging homophobic conspiracy theories. Despite this, variations of the term are still evolving to evade detection on social media. Within the last year, at least one online grooming CSA case has involved a twitter profile including the term, and it getting totally missed by twitter and authorities [8] (This article is upsetting, and I feel it's slightly exploitative of NBC. I'm at the end of my tether so I haven't read it through). I can see why people might wan't to erase the efforts of people like 86sedan off the face of Wikipedia, as GhostOfDanGurney says, but it really can't justify not talking about these things. The fork argument is absurd and I see it as a result of either panic or a lack of investigation on the part of !voters. small jars tc 07:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - Per DFlhb's analysis, and that this is clearly some disastrous CONTENTFORK. I'll also add that "Minor-Attracted Person" is something of a misnomer; i.e. I don't think the reason pedophiles are attracted to children is because they haven't reached the legal age of majority, though those people are almost always below the age of majority in most jurisdictions (though on reflection this term does seem to be framing this phenomenon well for pedophiles who want to legalize their desire to fuck children; "Arg! If it weren't for those pesky laws of majority..."). I would ordinarily recommend a REDIRECT to Pedophilia#Society and culture, but based off the *interesting*, very vocal crowd this AfD has attracted what that portends for the future would be constant recreations and borderline violations of WP:CHILDPROTECT. So SALTing is in the best interest of Wikipedia and everyone else. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly redirect. We would have no separate feces-attracted person adjacent to copraphilia. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have many articles that cover such perversions. If necessary, redirect (without retaining the history) to Pedophilia. Nfitz (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or if redirect redirect to paedophilia or chronophilia#Chronophilias related to minors. Having caught up on the sources published since the last time this was at AfD, what I said then is still true. The term MAP is a euphemism for paedophilia, and the content that's in this article is a pretty clear POVFORK of the other existing articles. If this is deleted, I'd recommend salting. If it's redirected, I'd recommend full protection. Either recommendation is to prevent us from having to go through this a third time in another couple of years. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, salt, on top of the above reasons, this article appears to have become a rallying point for... how do I say this without casting aspersions... editors who I don't trust being in contact with young editors even on talk pages. WP:IAR and remove this pov fork that caters to "researchers". Very Average Editor (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.