Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hipster doofus


 * 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 redirect per nom. Mailer Diablo 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipster doofus
The only well-established "hipster doofus" is Cosmo Kramer. The paragraph concerning Kramer & the term is covered on Kramer's pge, and the rest of the article is utter crap: the hipster portion is copied directly from hipster, and doofus is just a dicdef by Wiktionary. Additionally, this article has become an unsourced POV sounding board with the inclusion of Beck, Moby & David Lee Roth--the term is said to be "frequently applied" to these artists, but the only "sources" provided are 3 Google searches. Any and all efforts to demand proper (WP:V & WP:RS) sources or to redirect this article to Cosmo Kramer have been reverted. Anything I do unilaterally will be reverted so I need some consensus here. I vote delete and redirect to Cosmo Kramer, everything that's any good in this article is covered there. -- Scientizzle 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. --AlexDW 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. The three google search get less than 1000 hits. --Pboyd04 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect - per nom -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 18:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A6. Redirects... i'm not too sure about because it seems Kramer is a hipster doofus, not the hipster doofus, I don't see it as a plausable search term. hateless 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. -ChristopherM 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect Giddy-up -- GWO
 * Redirect, but may I ask a question: If the claim is that a term is "frequently applied" to so-and-so, why wouldn't a Google search be a perfectly valid measure of the factual accuracy of this claim? Indeed, what more reliable indication of the prevalence of such an identification could there possibly be, other than a search query? Anonymous 198736 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A keyword search gives little to no context for the usage of the terms. A Google search for "Beck is a hipster doofus" gives no hits, for example, and a majority of the results the provided "source" searches show nonspecific references.  All it takes is some blog to have written "hipster doofus" and "David Lee Roth" anywhere on the same page to generate a hit. -- Scientizzle 19:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just look at the results. "Beck is such a goofy hipster doofus." "...hipster doofus Beck." "Beck was just lookin' like a stoner-hipster-doofus..." "...Beck's hipster doofus lyrics..." And on and on and on. I ask again, how better to collect all these references together than with a Google search? Remember that the claim in the article is that the term is "frequently applied" to this person. Anonymous 198736 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did look at the results. Clearly there were some hits. However, those three Google searches came back with 124, 86 & 38 original hits, respectively, which hardly qualifies as "frequent" for the internets.  My point still stands that a Google search is not citable a source as defined by WP:V & WP:RS--it's actually closer to original research.  If you found a source that discussed the term "hipster doofus" as something widely applied to these three musicians, that might be worth something.  Then the issue would be whether "hipster doofus" deserves its own article or should such sourcing be applied to the individual articles of the subjects at hand. -- Scientizzle 21:13, 5 July 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.