Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eep (7th nomination)


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

The result of the debate was CARNILDO seems to keep everyone happy and there appears to be almost no support to retain this article standalone. The transwiki to Wiktionary can be done at leisure and is not do-able in the usual transwiki way since working out which edits would need to be listed in the history is more or less impossible, and whether it would even be a transwiki is unclear. Thus: -Splash talk 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The acronym usage is already in EEP.
 * 2) See above.
 * 3) So merged. Fight it out over at System 7.
 * 4) I'll go with the redirect given the rest of the debate. I hope that Eep² will not revert back but if this becomes a problem, request protection at WP:RFP then rather than pre-emptively now.
 * 5) See above.

Eep
Delete &mdash; this perennial favorite goes back all the way to The original Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense prior to 2002-03-08! Some history has been restored by Splash for your edification, and the previous 6 deletions of similar material are detailed on the talk page. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable, and nonsense; recreation of deleted content with more window dressing (copy and paste move from EEP). The useful abbreviation expansion information should be maintained at EEP (the standard location) and this page should redirect {R from abbreviation} there (the standard practice). William Allen Simpson 16:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep information. Mergre to "EEP" and redirect. At the same time you might as well redirect "eep" and "eEP", "eeP", "eEp", and any other possible permutation to "EEP (disambiguation)". Which inherently if it ain't already would need to become a dissambiguation page. This article doesn't appears to violate any WP:DP. Keep and go argue your merger elsewhere. --CyclePat 17:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could detail which information is (a) verifiable, (b) significant and (c) not already in EEP. I couldn't find any. Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, recreation of deleted content / non-notable / WP:NOT a general knowledgebase. Note that most of the acronyms aren't notable or common at all; apparently, they have been added to inflate the notability of the utterly non-notably sound eep and its presumed place in pop-culture. The many personal remarks (calling others wiki nazis, for example) do not help the case of, who acts as the owner of the article. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and protect the redirect. What's the problem here? Septentrionalis 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this article, specifically the very few things in this article which are not already in EEP, has already been deleted by consensus multiple times, for example on the grounds that one word contained in (but not the subject of) a song which features in one Jetsons episode does not make for encyclopaedic content - it was BJAODNed years ago. This article amounts to a POV fork of EEP.


 * Merge Delete and protect, following further backtracking of history and contents of this article. What is not already in EEP varies between highly suspect and complete bollocks.  I have, for example, removed a link to a "funny web page" which apparently "mentions the word eep" from both, along with verious other bits of nonsense.  Just zis Guy you know? 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to remove quite some of the irrelevant content before, but was swiftly reverted by Eep². I recommend protecting indeed. &mdash; mark &#9998; 17:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP, don't merge/redirect: All information is relevant, notable, and encyclopedic. Who says what is and why can't you people realize this information is? Learn to think relatively. You acknowledge EEP but only a few acronyms. Why? ALL acronyms are valid; if one company/organization is listed, all should be--whether or not they have a Wikipedia article. The "Wild Eep!" Apple Macintosh system sound is public domain (I don't see Apple taking down this site which provides many classic Mac OS sounds and which many Mac software websites link to). The "funny web page" link relates to the sound's history which IS silly but still applies to the history of the "Eep", as it refers to the sound. WikiMac also acknolwedges this and other links I added to THIS Wiki's page... The "weird song" link is about the sound too and demonstrates the quirkiness of the sound and what some people think of it--enough to compose music to it! The link to the Road Runner is valid, too, since both sounds are similar, are expressions/interjections, and I think makes for an interesting comparison/relation. While I'll budge on the Albanian "shqip" pronunciation, drinking game sound, and even the Google "eep" search link (I was simply being concise), I DO believe the Star Control II Yehat Veep-Neep clan is valid. Why does it include "eep"? Is it because it sounds like a bird (which is what the Yehat race is)? The reference IS encyclopedic even if you people can't (or won't attempt to) understand why.


 * So many pages on this Wiki are simply compilations of info and other articles it's not even funny. Why come down on THIS article? I call it article lynchmobbing... Eep² 13:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What? A wiki which explicitly specifies that it contains only information which can be verified from reliable sources and it's full of compilations of info and other articles?  Say it ain't so! Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Call it what you want, Eep², but please refer to WP:OWN on ownership of articles, as well as WP:NOT on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not meant to be your personal compendium of information you find interesting or encyclopedic. And I hear you saying it's not mine either. You know what? You're right. That's why I did not delete it six times before, the community did. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! "Community" my ass--more like LYNCHMOB. The "community" that voted to delete the page was short-sighted, narrow-minded, and ineptly lacking in relativistic critical thinking. The Wikipedia IS a compendium of information found interesting or encylopedic and, guess what? EACH AND EVERY SINGLE WIKIPEDIA PAGE WAS CREATED BY A SINGLE PERSON WHO FOUND THE INFORMATION INTERESTING AND ENCYCLOPEDIC. What is interesting and encylopedic to one person may not be to another person. The Wikipedia is big enough that it can have a LOT of information not all will agree on being interesting/encylopedic. It's called information diversity. When would you like to start thinking relatively, Mark et al? Why don't you get over your little crusade here and go back to your TLA page (which is ALSO a page YOU find interesting and encylopedic--oops). Drive through! Eep² 12:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny how it's the community which is on a crusade and the person who relentlessly re-creates deleted content who is not. Strangley I had always read that the other way round. Just zis Guy you know? 13:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge, redirect, split, disambiguate, delete, transwiki, and probably several other actions:
 * The acronym usage should be merged into EEP.
 * The expression should be transwikied to Wiktionary. It's a dictionary definition.
 * The information on the Macintosh sound should be merged into an appropriate article on the Mac sound system. If we don't have one, it and Sosumi can be combined to make it.
 * The "popular culture" section is extreme trivia, and should simply be deleted.
 * The article title itself should be redirected to EEP or changed into a disambiguation page.
 * The external links should go to Wiktionary, if they accept that sort of thing.
 * --Carnildo 02:30, 2 March 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.