Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EEP

The phrase "External Electronic Photomanipulation" gets exactly 0 google hits, and the current article doesn't even go so far as to give a definition. Any evidence this isn't made up? Also delete its redirect, Eep. --Delirium 18:23, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * "External Electronic Photomanipulation" comes off as nonsense if you take each word one at a time. Photomanipulation...manipulating with light?  Electronic light?  From what external source?  Either that or someone just likes the sound of "Eep."  Delete.  Eep. - Lucky 6.9 21:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The word "Photomanipulation" is used here to refer to alteration of a photograph.  This sounds like a neologism for Photoshop.  Delete.  SWAdair | Talk  04:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lordy, lordy, even if it were meaningful, we'd be deleting it as a dictdef, and it can't be made meaningful, seems to me.  (Photoshop isn't external, after all.)  This is just weird. Geogre 14:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not make sense. Andris 00:54, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Those who cannot bring themselves to delete anything may want to add this little, um, something to TLA. Otherwise, an excellent plan would be to delete, seeing as how sometimes articles can actually have negative content. (information factor minus howdumbdoyouthinkiam factor equals content factor). Denni &#9775; 05:33, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)