Talk:icup
Before marking for deletion
editPlease consider that this joke is in widespread use, and that someone may want to look up the actual meaning of "icup" here (but only to find out that it doesn't actually have a meaning). PseudoSkull (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Not a word. --WikiTiki89 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, who cares? It's attested, and people might wanna know what it is and what it means. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The entry doesn't say what it means, only when it's used... Equinox ◑ 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that kind of the point of some entries? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You could compare this to entries like doggo, which, in one etymology, is only used in lie doggo. Except for the fact that the term it's only used in has too many variants to have an entry, i.e. "How do you spell icup?", "Spell icup for me.", "Spell icup.", etc. So by those standards, this merits an entry. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- We recently had an "only used in" which was, in fact, deleted for that reason: it wasn't a proper entry. I don't see your point about spelling, either. "How would you spell quirkafleeg?" doesn't mandate an entry for that. Equinox ◑ 09:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, especially if we don't cater for words coined in fun; one I remember is MTGG (a hungry horse). DonnanZ (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Send to RFV to see if there are any uses that actually meet the use/mention distinction. If the term is only ever used where its meaning is immediately explained, then it is doubtful to say that it is used in print. bd2412 T 12:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- It does rather seems to fail WT:CFI line 1 "all words in all languages" as not a word in any language. It does not say "all jokes in all languages". Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Our own dictionary defines word as "The smallest unit of language which has a particular meaning and can be expressed by itself; the smallest discrete, meaningful unit of language"; the question in this case is whether this has a particular meaning that can be expressed by itself. bd2412 T 15:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- According to icup itself, no, it doesn't. Which is why I don't favor RFV as any citations found must necessarily fail the use-mention distinction. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I can envision, at least hypothetically, a scenario where someone uses "icup" as a word with the intent of asking another person to spell it, but never gets around to asking for the spelling. Frankly, I think that it is unlikely that we will find any, but I also think that questions of verifiability should be settled before addressing whether the term, if verified with CFI-worthy citations, should have an entry. bd2412 T 20:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, why not, worst that can happen is it fails 3 weeks later than it really ought to. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- It also places the burden of providing citations on those who would keep the entry. bd2412 T 04:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, why not, worst that can happen is it fails 3 weeks later than it really ought to. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I can envision, at least hypothetically, a scenario where someone uses "icup" as a word with the intent of asking another person to spell it, but never gets around to asking for the spelling. Frankly, I think that it is unlikely that we will find any, but I also think that questions of verifiability should be settled before addressing whether the term, if verified with CFI-worthy citations, should have an entry. bd2412 T 20:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- According to icup itself, no, it doesn't. Which is why I don't favor RFV as any citations found must necessarily fail the use-mention distinction. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Our own dictionary defines word as "The smallest unit of language which has a particular meaning and can be expressed by itself; the smallest discrete, meaningful unit of language"; the question in this case is whether this has a particular meaning that can be expressed by itself. bd2412 T 15:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- It does rather seems to fail WT:CFI line 1 "all words in all languages" as not a word in any language. It does not say "all jokes in all languages". Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I opened WT:RFV#icup to find quotations, if any. I am not closing this RFD, though; it may be needed to close the matter if quotations are found over which dispute arises. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The joke doesn't even work. I would answer "E-Y-E-C-U-P" to the question. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Localised Finnish version of the joke: Juha and Johan are sitting in the sauna. Johan says "Juha, how would you spell icup?" Juha says "be serious man, we have only twelve litres of Koskenkorva and three hours until sunrise." Equinox ◑ 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are mean!! --Hekaheka (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Closed as further discussion should be taking place at RFV. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are mean!! --Hekaheka (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
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.
Any attesting quotations showing this meets WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Failed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)