Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eep (0th nomination)

Article Eep listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 8 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

nonsense. RickK 06:21, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Its not nonsense; it has valid content. Hone up on your policies and guidelines and RESPECT OTHER CONTRIBUTORS. -Eep²
Nonsense. Not significant enough to be called trivia. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let's look at policies and guidelines. The third point in key policies is What Wikipedia is not. Under section two (What Wikipedia entries are not), look at point 2 and 11. Either this article falls under point 2 and is a dictionary entry or it falls under point 11 and is a loosely associated quotation; for the former try wiktionary, for the latter try wikiquote. Delete. Telso 07:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Significance is relative, SWAdair. What's significant to you may not be significant to another. Not your call. This is a public encyclopedia. The page has trivia; hence, it IS significant and not nonsense. Get over it and start CREATING content, not DESTROYING it. -Eep²
The purpose of this page is to make a call. It isn't my call, but community consensus that will decide the fate of the articles here. I merely gave my reasons for my vote to delete. BTW, the OED defines trivia as "things of little consequence" -- i.e. not significant. SWAdair | Talk 07:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Entry not encyclopedic and not significant enough for either wiktionary or wikiquote. Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 07:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Content is so silly that it give even "Trivia" a bad name. ping 07:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe there's a need for an onomatopeia wiki? Ianb 08:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I concur with Telso. SkArcher 10:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. - TB 11:05, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- pne 12:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's a noise and a description of one. Didn't we just go through this with external electronic photomanipulation? Geogre 13:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, can anyone confirm that it was a song on "The Jetsons?" It sounds suspiciously like "I Told the Witchdoctor/ and this is what he said/ Oooh, eee, ooh ah-ah/ Bop bop wallah wallah ding dong" from the 1950's. Could be a parody from the show that I don't remember, but, if this is our previous Eeper, could also not be. Geogre 20:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we did. I'm not buying the argument about "relative significance." It's onomatopeia, not encyclopedia. If the best the "word" can do is be a part of the title of a song that appeared on a single episode of "The Jetsons," it doesn't belong here. Surely Eep² can contribute better. - Lucky 6.9 16:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If it's an expression, it is not one that is known to the American Heritage dictionary. Dpbsmith 16:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment: The "Jetsons" reference is legit. It was a one-time thing in a single episode that was sung by Judy and George and some quasi-Beatles group called, I believe, "The Way-Outs." Been a LONG time since I've seen it. Oh, and the correct line in "Witch Doctor" after the "ooh-ee" part is "ting, tang, walla-walla bing-bang." I dig that early Ross Bagdasarian stuff. :^P - Lucky 6.9 21:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article is dumb, and the eep sound is copyrighted as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete.Hayford Peirce 23:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I seemed to remember something about "Eep" on the BJAODN pages, and I was right. It says something along the lines of "Eep Opp Ork Ah Ah/The monkey says I love you." Might have been from this same guy. Check out his internet site, BTW. It's called...are you ready?...Eep. - Lucky 6.9 00:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Exploding Boy 01:22, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
"Jetsons" ref for all those racking their brains to remember: Judy enters a songwriting contest, the winner of which gets his/her song performed by teen idol "Jet Screamer." George is jealous of Judy's crush on Jet Screamer and causes mischief by switching her lyrics "Jet Screamer-screamer-screamer, you're a dreamer, dreamer, dreamer..." with Elroy's secret code "Eep Op Ork Ah-Ah," which George is sure will be immediately disqualified but which actually wins, to everyone's surprise. Delete. -- Decumanus 01:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Again, why delete when the sound "Eep" has at least 2 references? I call that significant--hell, I call even ONE reference significant! Want some more references/significance? Acronym Finder. Leave it alone. -Eep²
Things I've done both on and off the internet are all over Google under my real name. I'm not clamoring for an article anytime soon. Let's be honest: Who the heck is going to look for "eep" anywhere on the internet? This was funny twice. It's getting annoying going into the third time. Please consider focusing the energy you're wasting on "eep" and either apply it to a useful article or expand an existing article that sparks your interest. Just trying to be helpful, not combative. - Lucky 6.9 05:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Gary D 07:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Alexandre 09:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete please. Fire Star 19:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. —Stormie 04:09, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Again, who decides what's encyclopedic or not? Yet another reference was added regarding the Road Runner's "meep-meep" sound. How many references for something to be "encyclopedic"? How do you know what people will or won't search for, Lucky? You don't. Why presume no one will EVER search for "eep"? That's quite of an assumption (and a fallacious one at that). -Eep²
- We decide. Or were you confused about what we were doing here? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And, I don't believe that I'm being the least bit presumptuous or assumptive. I simply asked a question which begs asking again: Who do you think would search for an onomatopedic word that exists soley in the title of an obscure song from a single episode of a 1960s cartoon show? Regarding your argument about the Road Runner, that sound is significant. "Eep" is not by a roughly twenty-to-one margin so far. - Lucky 6.9 08:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Encylopedic" doesn't mean "has 5 references," it's also a comment on how it is written. An encyclopedic version of an article on "eep" would describe the word origins, perhaps what linguistic function it serves, whether or not they say "eep" in China or not, etc. There used to be an entry on "Uh" which said, and I quote: "Uh is a sound of hesitation similar to er." Now, Uh redirects to speech disfluencies, which I think is a lot more helpful (and certainly more encyclopedic) than a simple, poor, definition. Delete, but always invite Eep² to write an encyclopedic article on the same topic if he/she feels compelled to. At the moment, it's a dictionary entry with some minor annotation. --Fastfission 00:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just throwing my delete vote in for good measure. Ambivalenthysteria 01:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Taco Deposit 02:36, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
'Deleep - Tεx τ urε 03:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Goobergunch 23:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion