Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Muppet

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Userfy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Muppet


This page has nothing to do with Wikipedia, it was originally an article that was deleted. It was saved so editors called a muppet could understand what the term means, but that would be a personal attack. And anyway, we're not Wiktionary. We don't keep records of every single colourful insult editors can think of, and it's not like this one is even that common. CamelCase (Talk &#124; Contribs) 20:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's cute.  There are plenty of muppets on Wikipedia.  Possibly less recently because the place is becoming too serious.  Userfy to User:PBS/Muppet.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You may have already known this, but I should clarify it uses the definition of "muppet" as "a stupid or incompetent person" (see muppet), not the cute creatures made by Jim Henson. CamelCase (Talk &#124; Contribs) 04:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't read muppet as accurate, as not sufficiently conveying the softness of "muppet". "Mild abuse" ... "often used mildly affectionately".  Even "abuse" is a bit harsh.   "Inept" or "lacking in skill".  While offence comes primarily from the speaker's intent, this is not a term of choice if the intention is to offend.  It is actually more used to convey understanding and forgiveness of a silly mistake, a moment of ineptitude, or a pattern of such.  There is no hostility to be found with muppets.  Certainly this is consistent with PBS's past use of the term.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This was never intended to be commentary about Wikipedia; a slang definition falls outside the scope of the Wikipedia namespace. If it was commonly used here, it could be included in Glossary, but it isn't, nor is it suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia proper (Articles for deletion/Muppet (slang)). Unless it can be shown that this word has a specific affinity to the backend of this encyclopedia, there is no more reason to have a page about this slang word than any other slang word. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I think WP:FAKEARTICLE applies here. Although it's supposed to be about pages in the userspace, using the project space for the same thing is even worse. CamelCase (Talk &#124; Contribs) 20:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as my comment when I moved it here "This page was deleted from article space. It is placed here so when a commonwealth editor uses the term muppet others know what they mean". If is a useful essay for that reason. It is common slang in the UK but not known in the US so this helps explain any muppet that does not know what a muppet is. -- PBS (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ESSAY, "the purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes." This page doesn't describe a "muppet" in the context of Wikipedia. Unless it's reasonable to have a page for every non-Wikipedia related slang label that someone might choose to throw around, which goes against established guidelines, retaining this isn't a good precedent to set. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The nature of Wikipedia as a volunteer run project, huge project, with minimal barriers for newcomers to contribute even to management subject to a few privileged exceptions, means that it is to be expected that the Wikipedia back rooms will have a higher than average density of muppets. I think it is an OK term to throw around, although untravelled Americans could have some trouble with it, and thus the need for an explanation.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They can just look it up at muppet. In fact, you could merge this page into that one. CamelCase (Talk &#124; Contribs) 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to muppet is probably a good idea. muppet is not, in my opinion, accurate.  However, I still support "userfy", as it is easily allowed in userspace explaining a term used by this user.  I have not found any instances of any user using this term except reusing it in conversation with this user, after he used it first.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support userfying it if it were rewritten to say how it's relevant to Wikipedia, otherwise it violates WP:FAKEARTICLE. CamelCase (Talk &#124; Contribs) 00:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The majority of the page would need to be tailored to the relevance of the term in regard to Wikipedia in order to sway my position. A hatnote won't suffice. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You overstate with "need". In userspace, the hatnote more than suffices.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Godsy, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If context is needed, all one would have to do is pipe muppet. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The essay has now been edited to remove some of the not-Wikipedia-related content. I don't really know if it's enough. CamelCase (Talk &#124; Contribs) 00:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.