Talk:Eep

Eep: non-notable?
The section on sounds (and on Eep in pop-culture) is absolutely non-notable. I have removed it once on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a general knowledgebase, but was swiftly reverted by Eep². I have not reverted again, I think it's a good idea to discuss it. However, for removing that section of the article I got called a wiki nazi by Eep², apparently the owner of this article.

I note that 'Eep' as an article on the sound was deleted at least three times before (see above). Just yesterday someone moved Eep to EEP on the grounds that it is just an acronym, but again it was immediately moved back by by Eep².

I think the ownership displayed here is inappropriate. I note that I have not seen any good reason for 'Eep' (the sound) to be included in Wikipedia; again, I think that WP:NOT provides plenty of reasons to delete the non-notable stuff on Eep as a sound and Eep in pop-culture. More importantly, this is largely recreation of deleted content, and as such may be deleted on sight. What do others think? &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, upon taking a closer look on the acronyms given, it strikes me as even more non-notable. It suspiciously looks like many of those were added to inflate the notability of Eep. I say: delete this recration of deleted content and go on working on really encyclopedic topics. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the big deal, Mark? Jesus fucking Christ--you and the other wiki nazis act like you own Wikipedia or something. IT'S A COMMUNAL ENCYLOPEDIA. Leave what others create alone and worry about your OWN content. -Eep² 12:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to my request at Deletion Review, parts of the edit history that could be easily found have been restored. It is very clear that most of the material has been previously deleted.  Much of the window dressing around it is not appropriate material.  Perhaps Eep² is trying for a record 5th AfD.  The useful abbreviation expansion information should be maintained at  (the standard location) and this page should redirect there (the standard practice).
 * --William Allen Simpson 14:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Eep², I'm concerned about the quality and relevance of Wikipedia content, that's why I question the inclusion of 'Eep'. That's the big deal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by a community, and most decisions are consensus-driven. This means, among other things, that Wikipedia is no-one's personal playground and that you should not subvert consensus by recreating content that has been deleted with the consent of quite a few editors. I suggest you stop your crusade. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And can you please stop the personal remarks. They don't help your case. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate
This article was redirected to EEP as a result of an Articles for Deletion debate. It was also partially merged to System 7. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 18:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

New page
I ran across Eep (disambiguation) on New Page Patrol. Since there seems to be a fair amount of history on this debate, I thought I'd drop a note about it here, though I have no strong opinion either way on its keepability. --Elonka 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have speedied it as recreation of deleted content. &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)