Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfish 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 merge to Missionary_position#The_Grip. SilkTork *^YES! 12:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starfish position

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

this was supposed to be here first somehow it didn't get here. Delete, Appears to be neolgism, having probleems finding reliable sources showing this is legit. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove this? ,the references are added. Noraalicia (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hellbucket, a neolOgism is according to wiki; newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Starfish position is lacking on the wikipediapages. It is a well known position and by all means used in everyday life just like missionary and doggy. It would be weird not having it on wiki along with the other sex positions. This is one of the most popular positions among women due to increased achievement of orgasm. Since you`re a male, you might not know...Noraalicia (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
merge into an appropriate article, assuming that any Verification is possible. (there ought to be, I have heard the term). The likely sources for this on the web are not customarily indexed by Google. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is no verifiable, reliably referenced content on the name of this sex position. The stuff about difficulties reaching orgasm in missionary position can be merged to missionary position. — æk ^Talk 08:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 07:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the verifiable information on the missionary position to that article and retain current page as a redirect to Missionary position--Cailil ^talk 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, look in the Google Books results, there are some hits. I think the article may be describing this position incorrectly, but the name is a valid search term. Like DGG, I'm not sure where to merge. Abductive (reasoning) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (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.