Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dodd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 03:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Dodd

Some kid whose claim to fame is bumping into Metallica at an airport. I asked the user to verify this information and his only suggestion was that I write to Lars Ulrich directly. Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 11:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't hate. Comment by User:163.1.227.76, the article's author.
  • Delete. Hate doesn't enter into it. Notability, however, does; even if the story is true, it doesn't make Mr. Dodd important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. At best, this chance meeting would make him into a footnote in some other article or the centerpiece of an anecdote best told somewhere else. -- Captain Disdain 12:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete. I am a huge Metallica fan, and have heard of James Dodd. The importance of the consequences of their chance meeting makes it worthy of inclusion. He was mentioned by Lars in an interview with a drummer magazine, possibily Drum!, and was widely circulated in fan forums a couple of years ago. Jc57 13:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is Jc57 (talk · contribs)'s first edit on Wikipedia. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 13:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please take note to the following WIkepedia guidelines: Please do not bite the newcomers Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource. Jc57 14:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not biting, just pointing out in a forum that gets more than its fair share of sockpuppetry that you have only just signed up for a user-name. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • By slanderously suggesting I am a mere sockpuppet, you are merely trying to detract attention from some of the skeletons in your own Wikepedia closet, such as the utterly inappropriate page on Glory hole, and the completely unsubstantiated one on Cassandra Latham, and thus the intrinsic lack of repsect other Wikepedians must have for you. Furthemore, this is no place for personal comments, if you have any more defamatory remarks about me, please use a private forum. Jc57 14:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • There's no need to get personal about it. Pointing out what I did above is a common practice here, simple as that. So you're not a sockpuppet? Fine, end of story. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Neither of those pages is inappropriate. Pointing out that your vote was your first edit is not slander; pointing out new users and users with few edits for the benefit of admins counting votes is common practice on VfD. See Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. — Gwalla | Talk 23:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy, perhaps. If he is notable, then the article needs a rewrite. Sonic Mew 14:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Bite them? No, they don't taste good. However, some newcomers attempt to learn the policies and comply. Others stamp their feet and start vandalizing. The former should be welcomed and showered with wikilove. The latter should be shown the door that leads to GameFAQs or Everything2 or something else. The article is vanity and its subject is not encyclopedic. (How many people who are not Metallica fans have run into them at the airport, I wonder. Should they be included? Can we have a List of people who have touched Metallica members?). Geogre 14:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_>|< 14:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as vanity. This article does not establish notability. The attacks above are discouraging. Brighterorange 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GeeZee 17:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 20:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I find the propensity for wikipedians to use 'vanity' to slander articles amsuing, given the amount of space they afford themselves and time they spend on their user pages. Furthermore I fail to understand how a single user can be accused of vanity on 2 pages with different subjects. 163.1.227.76 21:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The rules for user pages are not the same as the rules for pages in the main article namespace. Vanity page is not slander. The search feature also does not search user pages by default, so userpages have much less outside visibility. — Gwalla | Talk 23:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User pages are the proper place for users to write about users. That's probably pretty obvious. At any rate, this is just silliness. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why not. Chunitaku 21:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. At best, give the guy one sentence in Download Festival. --Xcali 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 00:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Ludicrous vanity. Meeting someone famous people once does NOT merit an article (I doubt that even the hardcore inclusionists would argue against that). The saddest part is that even the meeting Metallica at the airport claim isn't verifiable. "James Dodd" +Metallica" returns just 15 Google hits, most of which are forums and none of which seem to be about the events described in the article. So it's not just non-notable, it's totally unverifiable to boot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Xcali. --Adun 05:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity, one of the tens of thousands in similar situation. Besides, just about anyone could make that claim, since the band members cab hardly remember everybody they have met. Newcomers are advised to behave and listen, not to begin yet another rant. - Skysmith 08:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Although this may be little more than an amusing anecdote, it is far more interesting than the vast majority of trashy things on this site. Besides, I googled it, and, a long way down the line, found it to be verifiable. Thus, it must be retained. 129.67.97.115 17:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • SAVED!. Thank you User:129.67.115. I admire your honesty, and persistance in research. I assume all previous comments are now defunct, and that this page shall remain. Caster Troy 22:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You assume wrong, seeing as 129.67.97.115 didn't see fit to provide us with anything that would allow the rest of the world to also verify anything. But then, I doubt you are very surprised to hear this. -- Captain Disdain 16:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Skysmith. --Idont Havaname 23:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: Caster Troy (talk · contribs), Jc57 (talk · contribs), 163.1.227.76 (talk · contribs) and 129.67.97.115 (talk · contribs) may all be the same person - compare user contributions -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Francsy, can you please stop criticising the supporters of this article and try objectively commenting on the material. I remind you that by contacting Lars Ulrich, at the address already provided, you can empirically prove the truth of the article, and thus conclude the debate outright. Thank you. Caster Troy 23:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to do that. That's quite an extreme length to go to in order to prove the validity of an article. If there is no other material available anywhere else that validates this article then what Wikipedia would be doing by keeping the material is aggrandising an otherwise non-notable individual, which is not what this project is about. Wikipedia is about providing factual information, not about making anyone more famous than they need to be.
I also shouldn't have to criticise the supporters of any article on Wikipedia. However your actions have left me little choice. You have tried every underhanded trick in the book in order to get your non-notable pages kept: you have vandalised my talk page [1], you have created multiple accounts (as pointed out above), you have vandalised the discussion pages for the articles being deleted [2] and you have insulted and generally spoken down to a lot of people [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Why should other users on Wikipedia show you any respect whatsoever when you have thus far not shown any to our community yourself? -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Un-be-bloody-leviable. I was merely wanting to participate in a non-sexual orgy of intellectual virtue and learning, but this has been denied to me by self-serving, narrow-minded, superannuated, and above all, nasty people. If I do not receive apologies from all those that have targeted me as a young, innocent schoolboy in a world of old, haggard men, then I shall be left with no option, but to leave the Wikipedia community, and, I do feel, deprive it of one of its most incisive, inimtable, and innovative members; the choice, as Bruce Forsyth often says during the gameshow 'Bruce's Price is Right', which, incidentally, has a more famous catchphrase - 'come on down!', is yours.Caster Troy 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.