This is a noun, not an interjection. Plus: the citations are for stupid shit. --Pilcrow 00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It could be both if you ask me "You stupidfuck!" (interjection), right? + That is one stupid-fuck looking dress you nerd (noun) right?Lucifer 06:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
And I suppose the intention is to pass it on WT:COALMINE. You'll be lucky to attest the single-word version. Equinox◑ 00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Well as a matter of fact not really, I think stupid fuck stand alone merits inclusion, but as far as coalmine goes, it was very easy to find attestations, I just typed in "stupidfuck" on google and clicked book search and there it was.Lucifer 06:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
SOP. (Creator didn't bother to fix quotations or anything. I lold) — [RicLaurent] — 01:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
‘lold’ is not a valid word.
¶ dumbfuck is (apparently) not Sum‐Of‐Parts but it is identical to these terms, so your proposition is meagre. That said, I think all profanity is pretty worthless, but if I demanded execrations to be deleted from this website, there would be an overwhelming opposition no matter what. So I do not see the point in voting for this. --Pilcrow 01:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
RFD isn't a vote.
The difference between stupidfuck and dumbfuck is that dumbfuck is a common compounded word, where "stupid fuck" is just two words frequently used together. "dumb fuck" and "dumbfuck" are both pretty frequently used, and dumbfuck was used enough to become its own new word. "stupidfuck" has 6 hits on google books, and I'm guessing that at least one or two of those are mis-reports by the search, but I can't check cuz my browser is being a cunt.
If you really think that I give even half a fuck that "lold" isn't a "valid word" then you don't know me at aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall. Plus you spelled meager incorrectly, so stick it somewhere nasty lol. — [RicLaurent] — 01:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
¶ Google Books results are not absolutely necessary to support entries. Remembre that “clearly‐wide spread use” is also a valid way to support an entry. Try clicking ‘next’ at the bottom of this page for a while and judge for yourself. There is also an option to search within websites by putting something like site:example.com in the search‐bar. site:twitter.com reveals many results.
It's as widespread as dumb fuck, the quotations I will fix, they were a mistake by me, I was working on both entries and mixed them up. As for silly fuck and retarded fuck, no one has yet, I've never heard of a retarded fuck, but silly fuck I have, maybe you should add it.Lucifer 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a sum-of-parts to me. Also the contributor needs to decide if it is an interjection or a noun. SemperBlotto 08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The term "stupidfuck" is not a sum of parts, or else "headache" would be a sum of parts; we don't treat closed compounds as sum of parts. The term "stupidfuck" seem attestable even on Google books (google books:"stupidfuck"). The open compound "stupid fuck" should be kept per WT:COALMINE; it should be under the "noun" part of speech. --Dan Polansky 08:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It's SOP if you know that "fuck" is used as a disparaging term of address. — [RicLaurent] — 12:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't deny that both terms are semantic sums of their component words. I merely emphasize that we keep closed compounds even when they are semantic sums of their component words, so we keep the likes of "headache", "toothache", "stupidfuck", "dumbfuck", "beermaker", "carmaker", "shoemaking", and "coalmine". --Dan Polansky 19:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've got a feeling this is WT:COALMINE abuse. Having looked on Google Groups, I think stupidfuckcan pass after all, so we should keep both. I don't like it though! Equinox◑ 12:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Keep both and frown about it. (Though I think almost all applications of COALMINE are COALMINE abuse, so what do I know?) —RuakhTALK 13:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder whether stupidfuck and stupid fuck mean the same thing or whether, OTOH, stupidfuck is a noun ("contemptible person") whereas stupid fuck is an adjective and noun ("non-smart or contemptible" + "contemptible person"). If the latter is the case then COALMINE wouldn't seem to apply. I don't know what evidence might prove one way or the other — and this might affect what our definition should be for stupid fuck (if kept). As it stands, our definition is "contemptible person", which matches either parsing. I suppose the burden of proof should be on those who wish to apply COALMINE, no? So deletestupid fuck pending such proof, while of course keeping stupidfuck.—msh210℠ (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
If stupidfuck meets RFV then obviously keep it. But stupid fuck is not the same thing, it's just a SOP adjective + noun combo and is stressed differently in pronunciation (compare coal mine). Ƿidsiþ 08:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
stupid fuck and stupidfuck are the same thing, coalmine proves that, if its even written one word then clearly its no SOP and coalmine helps point that out, notwithstanding, stupid fuck is the more common version.Lucifer 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)