Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herp derp

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 was delete. Contact me or any admin directly if you wish the article to be userfied. Thanks Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 11:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herp derp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. I can't find reliable sources describing this phrase. The listed references are to urbandictionary.com and knowyourmeme.com, which are useful sites for recreational purposes, but lack the editorial oversight to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I don't know Wiktionary's policies, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be appropriate there, either. Melchoir (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, as it is not discussed in depth in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Cullen. Why would it be suitable for an article? It's a phrase, nothing else. CycloneGU (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, some phrases are suitable for articles. This one probably isn't, but that's an empirical matter; it depends on sources. Melchoir (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, thanks for that. I didn't think there were that many. My main point stands, however; this isn't suitable for an article. CycloneGU (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for sources, but could only find blog comments and newspaper article comments that contained the phrase. I didn't see any reliable sources either using or discussing it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete popular on certain websites (Reddit, etc.) but has not yet been covered by secondary sources. GabrielF (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that actually define it or its use. I am familiar with phrase, and was not aware of this specific meaning, so its most likely not so ubiquitous that "everyone" knows what it means, which if it was MIGHT make it a potential candidate for a wiktionary listing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I found an article saying "The Oregon Tea Party Facebook page was quickly subjected to an onslaught of image macros, desus, flames and herp derps, along with at least one message explaining why it was being smacked around."^[1] Hoping that knowledge of this phrase might initiate me to secret clandestine powers of Anonymous, I looked it up here ... only to find an article that is not very informative. At least one aspect of it - the "herp derp" userbox - seems more or less fabricated for the occasion. I am still uncertain whether the phrase has a consistent specific meaning, beyond general stupidity. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps read the talk page before coming to an agreement. @Wnt I have seen this herp derp user box once before; in fact that is the reason I researched this termUser:Mr. Popo8 (talk) 2:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Do Not Delete I, as the maker of the article in question, am against the deletion or "speedy deletion" of this article. The article is not, as was hinted at by some users, merely a definition. It is an encyclopedic entry regarding the existence of a meme known as herp derp. The definition in the article is not the only use, it is however a widely used term, with several different uses. This is merely one of them. With that being said, let it be known that the article is a work in progress. The other uses, and their etymologies/ histories of use, current uses, proper uses, etc. will be added. Remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not Dictionary. Note the differences: the the latter describes the linguistic use of a term, the prior describes the term. The intent of this article, in both its current and final forms, is not merely to describe the linguistics of the term "Herp Derp." Wikipedia describes the difference with an encyclopedia describing "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote," while a dictionary describes "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote." The different uses of Herp Derp are different manifestations of the same thing. They do not warrant different articles either, another key indicator of a dictionary article, as outlined by Wikipedia ([[2]]). Further, and lastly Wikipedia states that an "encyclopedic dictionary entry would contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed." This counters any argument to this regard; containing these elements does not make an article a dictionary entry. I hope that this argument will be taken into account, and that the article will be given the ability to grow and prosper.
As it's a work in progress, would you be willing to have it userfied if consensus decides the article is not ready for encyclopedic inclusion? CycloneGU (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus determines that to be the best option then so be it. User:Genexally7557 (talk) 3:18, 28 April 2011 (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.