Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace sign position


 * 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. - Bobet 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Peace sign position
Protologism, google hits on this link back to this article or aren't about this at all. So, fails Verifiability, among other things Xyzzyplugh 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete/Merge google returns nothing, even with -hand and -hands. Get some media coverage and it can be an article. On second though, maybe merge into List of sex positions. --Daniel Olsen 00:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is already listed on List of sex positions, although I suppose some more of this unverifiable original research text could be moved into that article. --Xyzzyplugh 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe an expansion on the seven words currently there is necesary, to give a decent description. Without reading the peace sign article I wouldn't have been able to understand why the position is called the peace sign. As for verifiability, I think enough people in the world have had sex that a description of this particular configuration of legs isn't going to be found in a newspaper. --Daniel Olsen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, sex positions are quite easy to verify from published sources. There are, after all, plenty of entire books on the subject.  See ISBN 0811839575, ISBN 0446691275, ISBN 184222266X, ISBN 0091900867, ISBN 1842228013, and ISBN 1592332382, for examples.  If a position is difficult to verify, then it is probably original research. Uncle G 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can find at least one reliable source. WilyD 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge with List of sex positions mathewguiver 16:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Missionary position has its own article; why not this? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * Because of No original research, Verifiability, and so on. --Xyzzyplugh 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and Wikipedia is not for things made up in bed one day. Whispering(talk/b) 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V :) Dlohcierekim 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.