Talk:Christcuck

RFD discussion: October–November 2022
Grand total of 122 Usenet results, far too obscure (and dumb) to include. - TheDaveRoss  13:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think so, I read it all the time on Telegram, not to say have it used as well. Anything specific has few Usenet hits nowadays. Of course it did not originate on Usenet but rather 4chan and from there it is in any community of ill-mannered people who spend too much time on the internet and on these grounds have learned that there can’t be such a thing as a God. ”Too dumb” is, to put it lightly, a dubious reason to request deletion of an entry. Fay Freak (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. "Too obscure" and "too dumb" aren't even valid reasons to delete an entry, so this RFD should really be dismissed outright. Binarystep (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Too obscure certainly is a reason to delete, too dumb is (obviously) not the actual rationale. Although this entry is extremely dumb. If a word is not used broadly it shouldn't be here, e.g. my family's nickname for my niece is used, but it isn't a dictionary term. If Fay's 4chan buddies use this a lot perhaps it is used very widely, but the evidence of Google suggests that it isn't use often at all. - TheDaveRoss  01:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep For context, I have also seen this in use. It’s obviously an edgy and (dare I say it) cringy term, but it’s not particularly obscure. If anything, the small number of Usenet uses simply suggests Usenet isn’t used very much anymore. Theknightwho (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: the nomination is a policy override. Overrides are not forbidden, though. WT:ATTEST policy requires 3 independent uses. If over 100 hits from non-edited corpus is not enough, how many are? Year span from 2015 to 2020. The search (google):, . Not all of them are going to be independent and perhaps there are not really as many as 100. There could be a case here, but it would have to be made better and a putative policy amend would need to be formulated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In cases where the term is likely to be predominantly used in places we can search, only getting a few thousand search results indicates that it is vanishingly rare. I am aware that there are people out there who create "cuck" words ad nauseum, they probably call us all "wikicucks" and probably call you as "Czecuck" and me an "Americuck", in one of the cites provided they also talk about "Jewcucks" and "Muslimcucks", there is no end to the nonce "cucks" that they have likely coined over time, who knows which ones have transcended the dark holes of "chancucks" and arisen to the bright light where the "OEDcucks" and "Meriam-Webcucks" can find and document them. - TheDaveRoss  02:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, looking at the second link you provided there (for the plural) it looks like dozens (possibly more than half) of those are one person posting the same thing all over the place. It also includes spaced versions. - TheDaveRoss  02:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this answer. I am aware of such creativity, but this is the trying question when a formation ceases to be private language and passes the threshold of being lexicalized, which circumstance to ascertain the method of counting quotes or occurrences, scientific like all statistical approaches present theirselves, always has been a mete-wand sorry for itself, which is why we regularly end up in subjective, experience-based votes. Fay Freak (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep; the issues raised by the nominator are typically handled by better labels, not deletion, AFAICT/IMO. Tag it as uncommon and/or originally 4chan? - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Is the first syllable pronounced or ? 98.170.164.88 17:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Equinox ◑ 17:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The quality of 'rarity' for a word means nothing except the obvious: that a word is not frequently used. That quality alone is irrelevant to 'word status': are real words that mean something. For instance, Citations:Ao-i-t'o-ko-la-k'o is a real word, it just doesn't meet Wiktionary attestation standards (probably). Merely for purposes of "keeping Wiktionary's pants up", the Citations rules scheme puts up some guardrails so that truly meaningless data which can't be easily deciphered is not thrown haphazardly onto the site. But there are words with extreme low usage (that is: once) that are bona fide words. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a significant difference between what we would include as a hapax (e.g. in Shakespeare or the Bible) since those words are used once, and then read millions of times, studied, discussed. The types of words we are talking about here are used hundreds of times by dozens of people and read perhaps hundreds or thousands of times. The problem with the CFI is that it assumes that the three uses required are evidence of significantly more usage, but that usage is hard to find. When the term is from Twitter or Usenet or similar, we have the ability to search for literally every usage, so in theory words which have only ever been used three times merit inclusion. I do not think they should be. - TheDaveRoss  21:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Dave, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that you protest the inclusion of a term on the basis that it is too obscure despite it clearly being compliant with our CFI (the previous two times being Talk:nigger lottery and Talk:everypony). You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation of WT:CFI and I actually don't disagree entirely with it. You do have a point. However, judging from how your requests for deletion for this reason are faring, I think it would be more fruitful if you sought a change in policy instead of nominating CFI compliant entries for deletion. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And excluding Usenet failed, so he could only not nominate such entries, without voting for a more generally redone CFI formulation like User:Fay Freak/Wiktionary:ATTEST 2021 to have the result that something is too niche or the similar so it shall be not included, for as I have outlined currently the CFI are so gross a guide that superficially criteria are met but people are still discontent of terms and the whole underregulation of this site leaves the impression of a horror vacui. But I think this particular one would pass anyway: if someone finds this word on the internet, Wiktionary is here for him to look it up. It has been praised on many places for this its particular capability of reliably covering slang others don’t. Fay Freak (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I created . It contains a very moderate proposal to see where this can take us. There was a February BP discussion but it was too chaotic for drawing conclusions from it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Things with this many Usenet hits shouldn’t be nominated in the first place. Also, this online article claims to be an extract from a book called ‘Clown World Chronicles’, published in 2020, and it repeatedly uses the word ‘Christcuck’. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD kept: snowball chance of deleting by now. More comments are welcome; this will be archived in a week. If deletes throw doubt on this closure in a week, it can be reopened. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I observe that an older, much less sophisticated version of the lemma included the qualifier "farright", quoted verbatim, which is certainly a most wanting label. But in the light of the quotations and Fay Freak's helpful information on the prominence of this lexical item among his 4chan cuck buddies, I cannot help but wonder if we need a better way to convey its association with a certain milieu characterised by conspiracy ideation and fringe beliefs aligned with the alt-right. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to say maybe put a usage note directing people to see the usage notes about cuck itself where this could be centrally explaining (whether or not we also add a label to words like this), but we're even missing using notes at cuck itself... - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added one, improvements are welcome. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  21:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: No real rationale for why this violates RfD. It might violate RfV but not RfD. Pur ple back pack  89    00:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)