Forum:Chihiro numbers

My article on them was deleted due to a sourcing problem. I admit there could've been not enough sources; I was pretty busy that evening, and didn't have time to add everything I wanted (including some sources). But there's a bigger problem here.

I'll rehash the history of these numbers: first, some guy, apparently suspected to be from Minnesota, created a Wikipedia article about them, attributing their invention to some apparently made up Japanese guy. The article got nominated to DYK, and made it all the way to a main page entry. Then, a few days later, someone finally noticed that many of the references in the article seem to be fake, and it got deleted as a blatant hoax (without even a deletion discussion). This all happened in late April this year, by the way.

Both over the few days the article existed, and apparently later, it had been disseminated over various places, both as a hoax example and as fact; I personally first encountered the name on TV Tropes (where it was a supposedly factual entry). This Reddit discussion seems to treat the name as fact, and it was started in September.

The question: what is a good primary source for such a thing? You seem to blanket-ban Wikipedia as a primary source - which leaves hardly any for this which was first and foremost a Wikipedia hoax; perhaps the best option I could find was the very Reddit discussion I linked above, and I don't really see what makes Wikipedia any worse than that, honestly. (Also, the original article proceeded with a very interesting section on "Chihiro factorials", which had not been copied anywhere I could find, so there won't be any sources for that part anyway.)

If your concern was permanency... um, I did not even link to the Wikipedia article itself, but to an Internet Archive copy of it (besides, the actual article was long since deleted, naturally). If that's not permanent enough, I don't know what is, really.

Any further ideas? Ideally, I'd prefer the article restored, but if you can explain what sources I should've used (other than the Reddit discussion), maybe it could be recreated as something more compliant with the rules :-)

--Январь Первомайский (talk) 10:35, September 19, 2014 (UTC)