Talk:atheistcuck
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Sgconlaw in topic RFV discussion: November–December 2022
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 8 December 2022.
doesn't exist? — This unsigned comment was added by 195.169.52.16 (talk) at 09:27, 25 November 2022.
- Well, searching for "atheistcuck" in quotation marks on regular Google currently yields 96 results, and after the 23rd result the rest are omitted as duplicates. The plural is about the same. Moreover, the sites that use the term aren't the kind we'd ideally like to use as references, for a multitude of reasons. There's nothing on Usenet/Google Groups; there's a little bit of usage, but not all that much, on Twitter. Obviously, this doesn't appear in any durably archived sources like books or journals. We'd need to adopt an extremely generous view toward online sources to admit this. 98.170.164.88 09:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- This feels like an unwieldy term. There's a reason Christcuck took off instead of Christiancuck. Binarystep (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Failed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)