Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Slut Night/1

Slut Night[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. No third party coverage. Geometry guy 09:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of this article, I've gone into detail on the sourcing problem. The gist is that all references fall into four categories:

Books and magazine articles that give background information on gender issues, but do not actually mention "slut night". These are valid sources but they don't actually contribute to the verifiability of the topic of this article.
A bunch of webpages written by the webmaster of butch-femme.com, or by visitors to that site, which were an attempt to popularize "slut night". None are referenced and all appear to be promotional. This site is basically a web community with no third party coverage in the first place, let alone any coverage that says they know what they're talking about.
Open "club directory" type listings that claim an event called "slut night" was held at various bars on various dates.
Two works of fiction being cited for original research (the Wikipedia article is arguing that because the phrase sort of appears in those works, that the people possibly got the term from there)

This is very poor sourcing, personally I'd vote to delete at AFD because there's no non-trivial third party coverage... literally the only place in the world shown to have prose information on "slut night" is a random website that advocates people hold these events wherever possible. Even if you accept that it's an important and reliable site, it's still trying to popularize these events and is a primary source on them.

I just don't see how a good article can cite no secondary sources with non-directory information about the topic. Would we accept a good article on a politician that only cited his campaign website, aside from some trivial sources listing nothing but the dates and times he'd made public appearances?

Yes, it's a sex-related topic. But I don't buy that we can't expect secondary sources on such topics. I just read a fantastic 400-page academic book on butch/femme culture in the 1950s ("Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold"). Good sources do exist on sex topics, this article just doesn't contain any of them... and thus, can hardly be considered a good article. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, on second examination, the sources do not seem reliable, as per the nomination. Nikki♥311 23:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, mostly non WP:RS sources, a large number of un-cited statements, evidence of WP:OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist makes sense to delist this due to WP:RS problems. Hekerui (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]