Talk:Austrian painter

Attestation criteria
IDK how specifically attestation criteria for Wiktionary works, but there are three sources documenting the phrase; from what I understand of Wiktionary's policy on neologisms, this seems like it would be enough to remove the request for verification. 23.93.181.240 21:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Done Shoshin000 (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In this case you must go to WT:RFVE and close the RFV correctly. You can't just remove the tag. Equinox ◑ 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you could have done it yourself instead of reverting. i dont know how to do it Shoshin000 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2023–May 2024
Doubt this is a thing. Thadh (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's the name of a book on Hitler (mentioned here ) and the euphemism can be easily found on Reddit . Equinox ◑ 15:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * People on social media will resort to ever more creative euphemisms to evade censors, filters, and algorithms (not all the same thing). I'd bet almost anything that could conceivably mean Hitler has been used at least three times on Instagram, Reddit, or Twitter.  Instagram doesn't have consensus for CFI but I'd still at least say it could be used as evidence of use to help strengthen a case built on more traditional sites. However, the alt-hist book the Austrian Painter is self-published, and we've at least broached the question of whether self-published books should count as CFI or not, as some of them are pretty shobbily written. — Soap — 18:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see it unironically every other day (e.g. saw it today). It's very popular in recent meme culture. Whether we can find actual citations for it besides YouTube/Instagram is a different matter, though. This is one aspect in which Wiktionary is not so good because it's not likely that such amateurish meme references to Hitler are going to make it into published literature in the ironic sense that the entry intends. So the entry criteria make it hard for such a widely-used word to be properly included. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen it often too. 2804:1B0:1900:E91A:D4AA:F5EB:3499:2286 23:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Do we consider simple descriptions like this to be terms that idiomatically and lexically denote specific people, anyway? Hitler is far from the only person I have seen referred to by an oblique descriptor like this; it's hard to find examples, but e.g. one Reddit comment that mentions "the Austrian painter" also mentions "the Georgian nearly priest". (And of course, it's trivial to find news articles about some British actor where the article says "The British actor's next project is about cats", but I concede that's a bit different because the article elsewhere identifies the actor by name and is just engaging in what Wikipedia calls "elegant variation".) Should we have an entry for the more-attested or ? ? (Maybe; I don't know.) - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is more a discussion for RFD; I don’t doubt it is verifiable. I agree with that this sort of expression doesn’t really seem to be very lexical, and I lean towards excluding them to avoid a multiplicity of similar dubious terms (the founder of […], the king/queen of […]. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I too am totally unconvinced this is lexicalized. We don't even have an entry for the . PUC – 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've encountered it a fair bunch of times, it's not isolated. Synotia (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This RFV has been up for many months and the only quotation added to the entry is a mention, not a use, so I'm deleting it as failed RFV. If anyone cares to find actual uses, please list them at Citations:Austrian painter until there are enough of sufficient quality that the entry can be restored. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)