This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Read it. Now.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make. Specifically,

This page in a nutshell: One sentence "articles" and "essays" that cannot be expanded should be deleted.

and

Wikipedia decision-makers are urged to make one sentence "articles" a speedy deletion category as there is no purpose for them. While one sentence may make a good summary, it truly is not an encyclopedia article. Neither, for that matter, are two sentences.

Ironically perhaps, I've removed the first of this article's three sentences, as nowhere is the shout-out to Connectivity (graph theory) explained in context — poetic metaphors have no place in an article, and indicate original research.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I have relented and simply edited the first line to remove the (unfounded) mathematics claim. But now that I look further, neither of the two cited articles is adequate even to launch a "sub-stub." Kae Burdo did not coin the term "polycule," and does not cite where it was swiped from, so (the "no original research" thing) we have only Polycule's founder to vouch for its accuracy. On reread, I've cut the last sentence due to synthesis: the cited source does not use the word "polycule."

At best, the remaining content should be rolled into Polyamory, from whence it springs.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough mainstream media coverage since 2018, notably a NYT Magazine piece about a 20-person polycule, to give polycule a standalone article. Jenny8lee (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The HBO Reboot of Gossip Girl (2021) must surely count as another example. It did promote some media interest as well, e.g. https://www.elitedaily.com/dating/what-is-throuple-relationship-gossip-girl-audrey-aki-max and https://www.teenvogue.com/story/gossip-girl-approach-to-polyamory-is-a-refreshing-step-forward . SlySven (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]