Template:Did you know nominations/Unicorn hunting

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Unicorn hunting

(

)

... that unicorn hunting is the practice by a couple, usually a man and a woman, of seeking a third partner for the relationship, usually a bisexual woman? Source: "Unicorn hunting is when a heterosexual couple seeks a bisexual woman to join their equation temporarily or permanently" (Vouge)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Davidson
- Comment: ~~I'll come again and update once I make the QPQ.~~
  I hope that the hook is interesting enough, but I can think of alternative ones if needed. Credits to Dr vulpes for updates in the page.

Created by NoonIcarus (talk). Self-nominated at 14:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Unicorn hunting; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Article is new enough and long enough to qualify. Although strict adherence to RS isn't a DYK criteria, WP:V is, and I am a little concerned about the sourcing. Seeking.com is a dating site, and is IMO unreliable and inappropriate for use as a source (it only has two uses and could easily be removed). More concerning is that the article relies heavily on an article from Verywell Mind. As it turns out, that site is blocked via the global spam blacklist, which I discovered when I tried to fix the source by adding a link. I don't think it's right to skirt the blacklist by avoiding linking to the source in the reference - the point of a blacklist is to not have those websites used onwiki. Surely there must be better sources you could substitute? Books?
The hook itself is fine and sourced, given that it's the premise of the article any of the refs would suit. QPQ completed. I am tagging this as ? for now instead of giving the green tick in the hopes that at least the blacklisted source can be subbed out before this goes onto the main page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: First, I wanted to thank you for your time to review the nomination. I originally didn't pay much mind to these details given that it didn't seem to be controversial information and it could also be found in other sources. However, with the inclusion of new sources I can agree that the article can be better off without them. I have removed Seeking.com per your advice and will try to remove Verywell Mind while taking care of the verifiability of the content. Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Try a Google search for "unicorn hunting" + bisexual, and filter for books. I found a few that look reliable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: The verifiability issues were easier to solve than I expected and this time around I found more references, including ThePleasantRelationship. I don't usually edit regarding these topics and I might not be so sure regarding their reliability, so while I can I wanted to ask your thoughts regarding it. I want to expand the article further if I have the chance, but also wanted to solve these mentioned issues first. Thank you very much. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The new sourcing looks good to me, thank you for taking care of that. I know it's a bunch of work but the article is better for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)