Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ménage à trois


 * 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 of the debate was Keep, Keep, Keep Eluchil404 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ménage à trois
This page consists of a dictionary definition; some inane statistics which could be added to any dictionary definition about sex acts, or many other things; and a list of movies and television programs with menages—which at most could go in a List. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. —Centrx→talk 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep referenced article on a very notable topic; a reminder to the nominator that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This page is not nominated for its sexual content. The reference to sex acts is only that surveys about people's opinions on sex are more common than surveys on people's opinions about benches or the sky, so that more "inane statistics" could be found about such topics. —Centrx→talk 08:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but note the surveys are also about experience with threesomes, and if I looked this up in an encyclopedia I might want to know how common it was. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is not particularly deep, but it fits into Wikipedia's sections on sex. I don't see any reason to delete it. Fipe 08:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, notable topic, serious article. (Comment: the fictitious ménages section needs drastic trimming, and the factual part of the article needs further expansion.) -- The Anome 08:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep notable topic and a fictional genre all of its own. Just zis Guy you know? 09:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid subject and although not feature worthy certainly passable as a stub. Besides, any good article begins with a dictionary definition. One should just include more than just the definition, which is done here. Did Kinsey do any research in threesomes? - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has been merely a dictionary definition for over three years. The only expansion has been to add more movies. —Centrx→talk 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  Speedy keep and cleanup per Wikipedia is not censored. --Coredesat 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed vote - this is not a speedy keep candidate. --Coredesat 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. ~ trialsanderrors 19:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep When I read the title, I was sure I'd vote for delete, but the writing, coverage, organization and NPOV are all much better than I'd guessed. It's certainly notable and manages to be non-sensational. The pop culture list works well. Inter lingua  talk 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but not a speedy candidate. Obviously noteworthy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP very important sex act! Brjatlick 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Korg (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. Carlossuarez46 01:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dictdef + list. Why is everyone yelling speedy keep? Kotepho 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speey keep and expand. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read Speedy keep. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. --TeaDrinker 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - It does seem rather silly to just delete the article when it will simply be added again in the future. Surely it is better to place the standard declaration at the top to say that Wikipedia is not happy with the article and that it needs expanding and leave it at that until there is a consensus that it has reached an appropriate level of depth? I have attempted to expand it but an antivandalism police man (sorry, forgotten your name) felt that my contrabution on threesomes was not appropriate. Perhaps threesomes should be split from this article?

Further it would be very silly to remove this article when (working from the framework that has been established) there is so much more to say on the subject. There must be surveys and articles written on households with 3 partners? It is far more common that people realise. Perhaps more work could be done to also include famous people who have lived in menange a trois such as Alan Moore (considered to be the greatest comicbook writer in the world) who lived with two ladies.

There are many areas in which this article needs improvement and a wide range of information that could easily be inserted to do so.

Like I said mark up clearly that it needs expanding but please don't delete as that would be wasteful and short-sighted.AWD--84.92.120.61 00:58, 25 June 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.