Talk:Kek (mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ancient Egypt / Egyptian religion  (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Egyptian religion work group (marked as Low-importance).


Um.. something is terribly wrong in this needs to be wikified! JD

The reference to internet popular culture needs to be removed entirely its absolute nonsense. It's just a namesake. "kek" = "lol". It has no relation to this deity other than it's the spelt the same. Nikolai508 (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Alt-Right morons are trying to co-opt Kek now as they have with much of pop culture. Thus tainting this old Egyptian deity with their racist, idiotic nonsense. Sadly this means that the pop culture reference has to stay... - The Mummy — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


I prefer a split; you can't have two articles, one about Ancient Egypt, the other about an obscene Swedish word in the same article. Shandristhe azylean 13:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if you split it, the expletive article is going to be votedeleted for not being notable - but an article named Kuk is bound to get this trivia section if one doesn't. Joffeloff 23:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not if this dicdef is removed every time it gets added, though. SnowFire 03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

kuk is male organ for penis in swedish and norwegian....noting else

Cucu is also one of the Romanian terms for penis, possibly a common Getic? origin see also Oium. hgjryhgjhg is an ancient Egyptian term for a phallus. Gabrieli (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Kuk is ~ Ak'b'al in the Mayan Tzolk'in as representing darkness, night, early dawn. Gabrieli (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC) There is also a Balkan phallic deity known as Kuker, whose ritual is performed by Kukeri. The frog and snake theme appears on traditional Romanian wedding jugs, with the frog appropriately sitting partly below and partly on the prominent spout. Gabrieli (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Kokopelli is a fertility deity venerated by Native American cultures of the south westerns states of the United States of America that is often depicted with a huge phallus, and is often depicted together with rams, deer, snakes, lizards and insects. Gabrieli (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

k'uk' in Mayan is not equivalent to the calendar day name; instead it refers to quetzal (the bird) in Western branch Mayan languages. AFAIK the "S. Goddard Foxe" given as reference is an astrologer, so wld seem not an appropriate source.
In any case, neither that nor Kokopelli have anything to do with the subject of this article, so not sure why they're being brought up in this context. Is the intention to provide disambiguation for other similarly written terms? If so, would be better to follow WP:DAB guidelines instead of incorporating these otherwise unrelated elements into the article here itself. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback CJLL. To split hairs, not equivalence, but a ~ , was described. Although I found the similarity match of concepts represented interesting, I concede the curly question of Ak'b'al can't properly fit this topic category. A k'uk in the hand is worth two in the bush :) But seriously, thanks, now I 'see' the lexical relationship of k'uk as in Kukulkan the 'feathered' serpent, sometimes depicted in human form with a bird on its/his back. S. Goddard Foxe does have a doctorate, however unless someone knows whether it is in a domain related to this topic, I suppose she won't be accepted as an appropriate source here. Upon further reflection, the thematic link of snakes represented in Ogdoadic deities such as Kukut/Keket compared with deities of the Pre-Columbian Americas such as Kokopelli or Kukumatz/Kukulkan for that matter is not appropriate here. Kokopelli (and Kuker too), as phallic deities I consider are appropriate as informative asides with regards to the first posts in this 'split' proposal regarding kuk as being the term in some languages for penis.Gabrieli (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As for the "penis" reference in some other langs, maybe the best way to deal with it is have a Kuk (disambiguation) page, where that can be noted as an alternative meaning along with the others presently mentioned in the hatnote. As someone noted above, there's no way that dictionary def meaning will substantiate an article. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Kuk = Huh?[edit]

Kuk seems inexplicably similar to Huh in most details, down to the female snaky form named Kauket (compare Hauhet). Why is this? Are they the same? (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The Ogdoad was an assemblage of eight gods who represented the characteristics of the chaos that, the Egyptians believed, existed before creation. Huh was infinity, Kuk was darkness, Nu was wateriness, and Amun was hiddenness. The other four members were the female counterparts of those gods, and they had the same names, with the addition a feminine suffix -t. When the Ogdoad gods are depicted together, they have uniform attributes: all the males are frogs and the females are snakes, because the Egyptians associated those creatures with water (and therefore chaos). Outside of the Ogdoad, Nu had something of an individual identity, and Amun had a fully formed iconography and characteristics, but Huh and Kuk were mostly just personifications of concepts and had little character. The four female members of the Ogdoad are even more boring. A. Parrot (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kuk (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Request Lock[edit]

Nonsense WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

4chan's /x/ and /pol/ boards are starting a modern revival of Kuk worship and occult practice in connection with their belief that he can be used as a doomsday god to bring about a refreshing end to the world. I would advise locking this article until these boards stop concerning themselves with this deity in order to prevent the inevitable vandalism that could come of this. (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So that's why there's been so much vandalism here lately. Thanks for letting us know. I'll request longer semiprotection at WP:RFPP. A. Parrot (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The future must not belong to those who defame the followers of Kek. Please do not use wikipedia to make light of the faith of others.
The worship of this entity does not belong to you, or your interpretation. Wikipedia will not implement policies designed to restrict the discourse of articles just because some self-proclaimed 'true' follower deems it so. --Donenne (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Kek has blessed her with small GET of dubs, therefore she is right and her authority is to be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testman42 (talkcontribs) 12:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Shadilay, amen. -- (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Kek is awake. No form of control will contain him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

KEK has awakened. Double digits, blessed by sacred seven, brought Trump to office. -- (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

His holy power awakens. Pepe and its connection to Meme Magic (Chaos Magick) must be allowed to exist on its page. -- (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The strength of their will meets the criteria to be history. A new leader is already born. Leaving that out of the scope of the history of Kek would be like leaving out some of the smaller countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm mildly against a section on modern worship. Too little cited articles published, way too early. The only paper I found to at least briefly discuss the worship of Kek in a context of projecting ones memes into reality was this: Hine, Gabriel. "A Longitudinal Measurement Study of 4chan's Politically Incorrect Forum and its Effect on the Web". Retrieved 2016-12-17. And it was only out since October this year, modern worship of Kek may turn out to be very volatile to attempt and document it already as encyclopedic knowledge. PS get away from our secret club. Praise Kek. (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"to bring about a refreshing end to the world" Wow, loaded language or outright lies. By the way, Why all sources on Kek modern whorship are leftist non academic sources? It's very sad what Wikipedia has become, it was never meant to be leftist propaganda and I'm speaking not only of this article but of Wikipedia as a whole. I have seen the slide from an online encyclopedia anyone can edit to leftist propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MovedJFG talk 15:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Kuk (mythology)Kek (mythology) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, 'Kek' is more popular than 'Kuk'. Per WP:TITLE, a natural disambiguation is preferable to a parenthetical if a suitable alternative is found. There is no present Wikipedia article with the title 'Kek'.
Google searches on the two terms:
"Kek" ("Mythology" OR God) gets "About 699,000 results" while
"Kuk" ("Mythology" OR God) gets "About 410,000 results".

Sources that put a preference for 'Kek' over 'Kuk' include all the sources currently mentioned within the article itself: [1][2][3]

This satisfies WP:RELIABLE. --Donenne (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Budge, Ernest. "The Gods of the Egyptians: Or, Studies in Egyptian Mythology, Volume 2". Retrieved 2016-07-22.
  2. ^ Steindorff, Georg. "The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians". Retrieved 2016-07-22.
  3. ^ Seawright, Caroline. "Kek and Kauket, Deities of Darkness, Obscurity and Night". Retrieved 2008-08-22. He was the god of the darkness of chaos
I have corrected it. --Donenne (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of (mythology), neutral on Kuk/Kek There are other Kek on the Kek dab page, Hungarian place name for a start. As for vs there isn't a great deal in it. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This seems to be a malformed multi-page move request, as the proposed destination name is already occupied (by a dab page). The proponent has not suggested what should be done with that page. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Kek" is the much more common spelling. For example, it's used in both of the standard English-language reference works for deities, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt and The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. I would have requested a move long ago, but I didn't want to mess with the complications created by the disambiguation page. Besides, I think this article should really be merged with Ogdoad, as there's next to nothing to say about Kek as an individual god, but that's a whole other discussion. A. Parrot (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I think Kek should have it's own page, it's been getting thousands of views recently according to the page view statistics. There is an interest in learning about this god, maybe it could be expanded one day? ZN3ukct (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
He gets attention because he resembles a bunch of memes that 4channers are obsessed with, not because there's much to say about the god himself. The 4chan Kek phenomenon is only about six months old, and as far as I know no RSes have discussed it. Which reminds me: could somebody semiprotect this page again? The 4channers are busy. A. Parrot (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Irrespective of where this newly found interest comes from, even if it from the darkest corners of the internet, it is still interest. Just because there are individuals like 420dankmemes who are obsessed with this doesn't lessen the arguments provided above for changing the name of this article to the more common form of spelling. If you disagree with the rfc, then please post your Wikipedia-related reasons for doing so. But preventing a name change in spite of a newly created internet pseudo-religious cult has no merit among Wikipedia policies. --Donenne (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Donenne: I'm not opposing the name change. If anything, I'm in favor of it. I'm just saying that I'd prefer this article to be merged with Ogdoad at some point, because there's very little to say about this god by himself. His only significance in ancient Egypt is as a member of the Ogdoad. The attention that the 4channers have given to Kek might make him merit a separate article, but only if their interest in him is covered by reliable sources. So far, it isn't. A. Parrot (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
[1] Check out this article ZN3ukct (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe the BBC constitutes as a reliable source. --Donenne (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for moving this article to "Kek (mythology)" and expanding on a section specifically dealing with Kek insofar as it relates to Alt-right worship thereof. JamesBay (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. A look at the cited sources and others found via Google Books suggests that "Kek" is the more common spelling of this god's name.--Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Do any texts have have these two interacting? This is another example of an Egyptian deity presented in both genders and I am not sure how common that was. Ranze (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Pepe the Frog[edit]

Two sources that link Kek to Pepe the Frog. Shadilay (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Pepe link needs removing from this page. It's just plain incorrect even if those ridiculous sources think that's what it means. I know the rules, and you can't cite yourself but this entire discussion is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on Wikipedia to date.
"kek" in 'internet culture' literally translates to "lol". In World Of Warcraft when a member of the Horde faction would write "lol" a member of the alliance would see a foreign language version of that and it would always come through as "kek". This is the origin. It has no relation to Pepe whatsoever other than the fact that the type of people who post pepe pictures also tend to use the word. "top kek" means "that's funny".
Some people believe that it's some alt right thing but that is beyond absurd. Why don't we also add that the moon landings where fake because you can find an article online that says they are. Even popular publications do not always understand the topic they are writing about.
This is a case of something false spreading around to the point where it's believed by the majority. Shall we start adding facebook chain mail posts to wikipedia as fact as well?
This is a disgrace to this page and wikipedia as a whole. Do we include popular culture sections to all pages that have namesakes? Nikolai508 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016[edit]

change the empty space at the bottom with a segment on modern kek worship.

I would like to add a "revitalization" segment to the page as THOUSANDS currently worship this deity!

there are even songs about him Wew lod (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In the 21st century[edit]

The number of Kek worshipers began to increase in 2016, many of whom were also said to be part of the alt-right.[1] A common way followers showed their appreciation for the deity was by saying "Praise Kek".[2][3] They consider Pepe the Frog to be a modern form of him.[4][5][6][7]


This is a possible future edit that could be made. Emily Goldstein (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As explained in various reverts, such a report does not belong here, and may not belong in the encyclopedia at all. See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:OR for relevant policies. — JFG talk 09:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, the sources provided were published by WP:RS. The citations were already included and were maintained before partisan editors decided to remove them without any explanation. The onus is on you to follow WP:BRD, so until you get consensus on this talk page for the informations removal, it will keep being re-added. --Donenne (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you've got BRD backwards. The additions of the "modern-day Internet cult of Kek" were repeatedly reverted and there was never a consensus for their inclusion. But feel free to go create Kek (Internet meme) if you feel that's encyclopedic… — JFG talk 09:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, there was a consensus by multiple editors, until you removed the content and cited WP:BRD. Sorry, doesn't work like that. The onus is on you to gain the consensus of editors to remove the information if you don't deem it relevant. Secondly, it is entirely relevant that a sub-culture in the 21st century revere an Ancient Egyptian deity from approx. 5000 BC, and should merit an inclusion on that deities Wikipedia page. See Jesus for all the different religious interpretations of this deity and the denominations of those who follow said deity. You somehow have 'inside-knowledge' that the Kek being followed in the 21st century by those who purport to be adherents is not in fact the Kek of Ancient Egypt but an 'Internet meme'... i.e a completely different Kek. That's purely your opinion considering the absolute plethora of WP:RS sources/citations listed say 1. You're full of sh!t and 2. You're full of sh!t. So for every different interpretation/perspective on a deity we have to make a new Wikipedia article about it? Your logic, to put in laymen terms, is retarded and will not be tolerated on this encyclopedia. --Donenne (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Donenne: WP:Personal attacks such as "You're full of shit" do not help your case. I have opened a formal RfC below to resolve the content dispute. — JFG talk 10:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
It appears you have misquoted me. I wrote "You're full of sh!t" not "You're full of shit". Infer from the last word what you will, however it is no personal attack. --Donenne (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever. I'll take this as an apology… Happy new year! — JFG talk 13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Guys, this is supposed to be an Egyptological entry. I do not dispute the notability of this thing at all, but this is not the article about it. I respect the relevance of pop culture and internet entries, but please don't let it spill over into carefully researched pages on specific, unrelated fields of scholarship. Also please respect that "WP:SCOPE is not commutative", i.e. "A is relevant to B" does not predicate "B is relevant to A". Use Kek (Internet meme), which is a redirect at present, and if you want to develop coverage on this, do it there. --dab (𒁳) 17:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Kek Internet cult[edit]

Note: The editor who performed the closure was blocked for sockpuppetry. If the closure needs a review, you may go to WP:administrators' noticeboard --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion has been open for nearly two months and a request for a non-admin close has been registered. As further explained below, the RfC may, itself, be redundant as the situation has changed significantly since it was initiated.

The arguments for and against largely focused on personal aesthetic preference. In only one case was a quasi policy-argument invoked (WP:RELEVANT), though it was based on an essay - versus an established policy - and was somewhat tangential in any case.
By breadth of support, roughly two-thirds of participating editors support inclusion of something about the Kek "internet cult" or Kek "meme" (11 favor, 4 oppose). However, several of those registering a "support" opinion conditioned it upon such a mention being very brief, and that extensive detail should be reserved.
The consensus is to include a very short section of the Kek "internet cult" or Kek "meme" that is consistent with WP:DUE. (In my opinion, the current section is probably WP:UNDUE.)

This consensus does not necessarily preclude said section being removed in the future and possibly replaced with a "see also" wikilink to a dedicated article should such a standalone article be created. (It should be noted that, since this RfC was opened, such a standalone article has, in fact, been brought into existence [as of February 24] and a new discussion about removal of this section in light of that fact would not be unwarranted. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article mention the recent "Internet cult" of Kek? Some editors have added a section about a 21st-century "cult of Kek" originated on 4chan. Some other editors have removed it as irrelevant to the subject matter of Ancient Egyptian deities. As a slow-moving edit war is brewing, a formal RfC is in order. — JFG talk 10:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


  • Oppose – Proponents are advised to create Kek (Internet meme) if they feel the topic is encyclopedic. — JFG talk 10:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - It satisfies WP:RELEVANT, as the subject matter being the deity Kek is invoked and mentioned time and time again in the context of its newly found 21st century followers and the sources from which the information is derived from satisfies WP:RELIABLE. And there certainly is no shortage of them. --Donenne (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Proponents are advised to create Kek (Internet meme) if they feel the topic is encyclopedic. — Nlaylah (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This should also be done, but the 'cult of kek' and the term 'kek' are different concepts that, although related, are distinct when it comes to this Egyptian god (only the cult of kek meme cares about this god. InsertCleverPhraseHere
  • Support – After reading that paper by Hine, 2016 about /pol/ I have concluded that in no uncertain terms, Kek is real, and by that I mean, real Kek ancient Egyptian deity — (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – It's quite common to have a section about contemporary social references. I think you will find that most people visiting this page are looking up the modern meme-magic cult where people write "Praise Kek" and such. However, this should be a very brief comment, just a couple sentences and a good citation. Any kind of expanded discussion of the modern Kek cult should have its own article. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Agree with DonPMitchell and Donenne that the article should make a brief mention on the material in question. Misoux (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The 'Cult of Kek' is a modern-day appropriation/corruption of the original concept of Kek, and reinterpretation of such things by popular culture is by no means unheard of. Moreover, it serves as for a context by which many who were heretofore unaware of the Egyptian god have learned of it and as such, at the very least on a contextual basis, it should be included in the article. JamesBay (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely, should the section get too large, it will need to be spun off into a Cult of Kek article at some point. InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – agree with User:JFG. It could be mentioned in Pepe the Frog, though. Khruner (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support via a 'In popular culture' section (added the section head again). Articles commonly have a 'In popular culture' section, and this meme seems to have lasted and has had enough coverage during the recent US political fray to qualify for a line or three on this page. Randy Kryn 15:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with conditions: it should be very brief to maintain WP:DUE. It does not warrant a section of its own (irrespective of title) considering the current length and overall state of the article. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per the many great sources that discuss this phenomenon. Denarivs (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the sources are clear that there is a large revival of the cult for this deity via 4Chan/8Chan and other Internet groups. Some of them even go so far as to say it was Kek's influence that enabled Donald Trump to beat the odds and win the recent election. TariqMatters (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there's certainly enough sources to document the internet phenomenon, but that is distinct from the actual mythological material. At best, the mention in this article doesn't deserve anything more than a "see also" listing to a more appropriate article for this content. Anyone looking for this material will find the disambig page at Kek (not this page) - from that page, there's no rational argument to explain why someone looking for this material would follow the link to Kek (mythology). A better option would be to link from that disambig page with a mention of this meme/phenomenon and a link to the Pepe the Frog article, or if enough material can be found then in its own article at either Cult of Kek or Kek (Internet meme). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
As nominator, I would agree with Barek's and Insertcleverphrasehere's suggestion of a Cult of Kek article which would provide a more appropriate target for disambiguation of "Kek", and would leave the article on the Egyptian concept focused on ancient mythology. — JFG talk 03:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


  • Support - Firstly, the following Kek has received has been covered by WP:RS, as listed above. Secondly, the increase in popularity of this deity is highly relevant to the article, considering that the God itself is ancient from a now non-existent civilisation. The abundance of sources documenting this phenomena also lends weight to the argument that this new popularity ought to be included somewhere within the article. The nominator somehow either A.) Thinks that the Kek being worshipped is not the 'real' Kek and is some sort of new 'trendy' internet cult or B.) The fact that this newly emerged interest began on the internet somehow disqualifies these peoples beliefs as being 'genuine' and therefore merits no consideration. Both these points are absurd and have no Wikipedia precedence behind them . I find it puzzling that a sub-standard Wikipedia editor can have the audacity to make either assertion in regards to a chosen religion/creed/philosophy.
Main points to consider: It satisfies WP:RELEVANT, as the subject matter being the deity Kek is invoked and mentioned time and time again in the context of its newly found 21st century followers and the sources from which the information is derived from satisfies WP:RELIABLE. And there certainly is no shortage of them. --Donenne (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I won't take a position, as I'm never sure how WP should address pop-culture interpretations of Egyptian gods. I like the fairly strict standards in User:Jackyd101/Popular culture advice, but even then there's a lot of leeway. I lean against including that stuff here, because most of the RSes referring to the Kek meme only discuss it in passing. But there's a comparison that makes me reluctant to oppose.
The Osiris myth is the one Egyptian myth that has any presence in pop culture, and its four main characters are the best-known Egyptian deities today. Yet I don't know how much there is to say about the cultural influence of modern retellings of the story, and I don't know of RSes that analyze the relationship between those retellings and the original myth. Kek is different, because the god has no personality in the original religion. The Ogdoad represents the infinite, formless, watery darkness that existed before creation. Nun sometimes appeared in religion and myth to represent that watery realm as a whole, Amun developed a complex theology and cult of his own, and Heh served as a symbol of infinity, but Kek played no role that I know of except as a personified concept, a mere name to fill out the rolls of the Ogdoad. And yet because of this meme, he's suddenly receiving attention and a few news articles talk about him. Whereas the Egyptian gods who are best-known today were major figures in the original religion, Kek's presence in pop culture is well out of proportion to his religious significance. A. Parrot (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • the material can well be covered on Wikipedia, but not on this page. The relevant page is Pepe_the_Frog. This can even be linked under "see also" from here. But please respect WP:DUE. The topic of this page is Egyptian mythology. Notability is unidirectional: A may be notable for B, while B may not be notable for A. Thus, Egyptian Kek may be notable for the Pepe topic without the Pepe topic having any bearing on Egyptian Kek. But to those restoring the "pop culture free" version, please consider merging encyclopedic content instead of just blanking it. Yes, the burden of providing relevant content is on those submitting it, but it would be constructive and it might avoid edit wars if you contribute to the effort of moving content to an appropriate place. --dab (𒁳) 16:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree - it belongs on Wikipedia, but not on this page. Especially given that an existing ref indicates the Kek meme originated with a variation of "lol"[2], any link to the mythological figure is due to coincidentally sharing the same spelling, and nothing more. Even if someone comes to Wikipedia looking for the term, they are far more likely to land at the disambig page for Kek and not this page. From there, we should instead be linking to Pepe the Frog, or if sufficient refs then potentially create a dedicated article at either Praise Kek, Cult of Kek or (my preference) at Kek (Internet meme). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Time to close the rfc, it's been active for nearly two months with an overwhelming consensus for maintaining the status quo. --Donenne (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's about time. I just posted a close request. — JFG talk 21:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: The editor who performed the closure was blocked for sockpuppetry. If the closure needs a review, you may go to WP:administrators' noticeboard --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot more to add to the "popular culture" seciton.[edit]

There's a lot more to add - one example: the coincidence that in popular culture (also among 4chan), "kek" is a euphemism for laughter, though this isn't directly related to the Egyptian God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SixMillionStrong (talkcontribs) 13:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That is covered over at the Pepe the frog page, and is not relevant here. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)