Your comparison is invalid. That pronunciation is accepted informally in some areas, but it is technically invalid, and that alternate spelling of nuclear you mentioned is considered invalid in any context.
Normalcy is in fact officially considered a word at present, and that is undeniable. Look at any spell check program or dictionary, and it will be listed. Often, so is abnormalcy.
I will concede that based on the typical/proper use of that suffix, that word and its aforementioned antonym should be depreciated, but that doesn't make them invalid.
Your original claim was that normalcy was not technically considered a word. The definition of what is and is not technically a word would be what is listed in a dictionary as accurate and not colloquial. You may claim that it shouldn't be considered a word, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is, in fact, considered a word.
My premise for claiming correctness in this instance is based on the majority of dictionaries and/or spell check programs. I perceive you didn't deny my correctness, but tried to obfuscate the issue by using words such as "okay" and "detest." Your sentiments about its correctness are irrelevant. The question is whether or not the word is, at present, officially considered to be within the realm of proper usage. I believe it is. Do you or do you not agree?
Also, you misspelled "pronunciation."
I reiterate my suggestion that you meliorate your faculties, illusioned echinoderm.
My comments about how "okay" a word is were sarcastic. I guess you didn't get that the first time around, in spite of my excessive punctuation.
Also, I cannot spell. I've never been able to spell. I don't pretend that I am able to spell. I am not wounded by your criticism of my spelling, nor do I deny its validity.
"Having is not such a pleasing thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." --Spock