Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow kiss

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was article deleted while discussion was in progress. Joyous 03:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow kiss
Previously listed as speedy... it is a sex position, and we do have sexual positions in the Wikipedia... even though this description is very disgusting. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blannked as copyvio. Mikkalai 07:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) Weak Keep, on second thought. I still find it effing revolting, but if I had previously read "rainbow kiss" somewhere I wouldn't have known what was meant and I would have tried to look it up. Merging with List of sex positions would destroy "lookupability" ;-) Ropers 23:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep We can't get rid of things just because they're disgusting. The goal is to present all knowledge, whether we like it or not. 24.60.189.129 05:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of sex positions. - Amgine 06:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge ~ mlk &#9993; &#9836; 07:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
 * Keep Why is this disgusting? You guys need to lighten up. Isamuel 07:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Disgusting" of course, is POV and not a reason for deletion ((not a big oral sex fan, but always up for the occasional "period piece" (sorry, kind of an in joke with my ex)). However, this appears to be a rarely used, vague, ill-defined, slang neologism, with less than 1000 hits for "rainbow kiss" -finian. Note that if you read the top hit (a forum) it has different meanings for different people. Delete even if it tries to make a comeback via the 'temp' page. Niteowlneils 18:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I gave it the original speedy, which I still think it deserves because it seems like a prank article. --LeeHunter 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gigglecruft. We tend to be a bit oversensitive and anxious to prove we're broadminded here. It's not prudish to delete pranks. Andrewa 20:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles on named sex positions don't seem all that encyclopedic, generally, and it seems sufficient to have List of sex positions.    If this slang term has any actual currency, include the position in that article. --BM 00:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Niteowlneils (well, the second part of his comment anyway!). David Johnson [ T|C ] 01:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if it can be cleaned up to avoid copyright violations. Megan1967 01:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Disgusting and fcked up, yes. But it does have rather consistent google hits so it ought to be included. :: DarkLordSeth 03:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: YEUCH! (I'm just saying.) Ropers 03:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.