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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality urban dictionary entry, followed mostly by unreferenced nonsense (or links to blogs/personal sites). - Motor (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There could be an article in there somewhere, but this isn't it. The "character" section is clear self-promotion describing a NN fictional creature, the links are mostly, as noted, to blogs/personal sites, it really doesn't seem to have a great deal of relevance; and if you take out all the stuff that's wrong with it, you're left with little more than a dictionary definition. Would have to say delete unless something seriously useful can be done with it. Seb Patrick 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought this page had a previous AfD, though I can't seem to find it. In any case, it was once merged with beep because it was not considered to be enough of an article to stand on it's own, but consensus was that it should me merged with other onomatopoeic sounds. (Note that this was before the article had any references - reliable or not.) Then, for some reason unknown to me, it became its own article again. (I will try to find links for this history, later when I have more time.) In any case, I'll vote later when I evaluate whether I could fix this article up with serious effort, but I'm leaning towards keep. (Perhaps a ((cleanup-verify)) tag would be better for now.) Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (History). Okay, so so there was in fact no previous AfD, but there was a short discussion about deletion on Talk:Meep. The consensus was to merge Meep with Beep, which was done on January 21, 2006. (Note that at this time, the article had no references, reliable or not.) Beep was then moved to Beep (sound) on February 3, 2006, and Beep became a disambig page. On March 26, 2006, and anon thought the redirect to a disambig page was page blanking vandalism, and reverted it. However, Meep remained on Beep (sound), in addition to having its own article. Thus, there are now too versions of Meep - one on Meep and one on Beep (sound). Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 20:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above, I vote strong remerge with Beep (sound). I agree with the original consensus to merge with Beep (which is now Beep (sound)), but I believe the present revision of Meep is mostly better than the one on Beep (sound). Meep would then redirect to Beep (sound). However, it still needs considerable cleanup, but I believe this can be done. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to strong keep. Some of the material isn't appropriate for Beep (sound). Salvage anything worth keeping from the "meep" section in Beep (sound), and delete that section. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, regarding the history talked about above: Meep is a complete mess... which was then dumped (rather than merged) into Beep (sound). As a result, there are two dire articles rather than one. The Meep stuff that was dumped into the article Beep (sound) needs to be removed (unless we think that Wittgenstein's last words really are rumoured to be "Meep Meep"), and the Meep article deleted, since there doesn't seem to be a single encylopedic entry in it. - Motor (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific about what is still a "mess" about it? It now has several relatively reliable sources (an academic paper, a truck-fixing article, a couple episode transcripts, a couple links to official sites). Some of the personal sites, at least, are the site where the actual "meep" is located. Yes, there are still some things in there that could use more reliable sources. The article has also been reorganized. (As for the meep section in Beep (sound), I have made no effort to clean that up. Some of the material in Beep (sound) was deleted from Meep due to being wholly unreferencable, such as the Wittgenstein rumor.) Also, the Beep (sound) article wasn't very good without the stuff from Meep... it only has one reference. Why not try to put specific cleanup tags on the top, and provide some specific criticism? (Not that it should be deleted, but a ((cleanup-verify)) tag could attract attention from editors willing to try to help.) In any case, it's far from being one of Wikipedia's best articles, but I think it's good enough to be included, with the potential to become better over time. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, specific criticism is exactly what I provided in the nom. The article is not remotely encylopedic and is, at best, a collection of indiscriminately googled up mentions of the word "Meep". You might try moving it to wiktionary and see how they react. Your one "academic" PDF comes from a personal website and is merely routed via google scholar, the rest are blogs/forums/websites that have been formatted according to wikipedia guidelines and a "Fantasy creature" section that is WP:BJAODN material. As for the schools point below: that is not an argument not to delete this article. You need to argue about those articles elsewhere. - Motor (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make it less of an indiscriminate collection of information by reorganizing it. Do you have further suggestions on how to make it less of an indiscriminate collection? I'll look into the reliability of that PDF and see if there's anything else to use, but it will take time. (For the record, the references were found with google, but I have no idea how the information was found in the first place.) The references are at least better than they were when the AfD started, and I think the article has the potential to improve. Also note Wikipedian policy regarding self-pulished sources in article about themselves. I believe Denni was referring to past precedence. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it can be made not to be an indiscriminate collection of information (it is already less of one than it was a few days ago). The trick is doing that without crossing over into original research, but a skilled editor could do it, given time. I believe that section of WP:RS does have relevance to some of the references in the article. In other words, I agree that the article is bad, but not that bad, and I believe it has potential. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.