Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
This pisses me off, actually. We deleted the uncited list of obscure sexual terms (read: juvenile protologisms) and now we have a whole series of equally uncited articles on each one, which can't be deleted because that would be "censorship" and because they are on Teh Intarwebs, so it must be true.
Can't the article be phrased just as you put it. "These are found on [[teh interweb]], but are likely to be [[urban legend]]s." Urban legends can be notable too...
Steve
No can do. We can't cite anything off the old internet without /at least/ knowing the publisher. [[WP:RS]] rejects blogs, forums, etc. because they are either anonymously written, unreliable as secondary sources, or both. The only source with a name that we've dug up is a one-sentence reference to a "Cleveland Steamer" in a San Francisco gossip column that doesn't even explain what the phrase means. The pop culture stuff is probably verifiable, but that means the article's focus should be on a sexual term used predominantly in pop culture, which makes it a Wiktionary article, not a Wikipedia article. We write encyclopaedia articles about topics that have encyclopedic, not etymological, material.
John