Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cooke (abductee)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cooke (abductee)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

James Cooke had an abduction experience, set up a UFO church in Runcorn for ten years, and then vanished. That is all that any sources seem to have about him (the local paper being the source that seems to have the most information -- a single paragraph). I'm pretty sure this is a WP:ONEEVENT-type case. As such, I submit he is not notable per our WP:BIO guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —J.Mundo (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to a general article on the topic of UFO abduction. Not enough material here for its own article as nom says. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Could be merged into Abduction claimants, but I don't think there is anything worth merging into that article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO. His claim to have been abducted to the planet Zomdic by a UFO also fails verifiability. Not enopugh reliable sourcing to justify merger to another article about abduction claimants. Perhaps there are reliable sources on Zomdic which might someday allow a good article to be recreated. Edison (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If being the Uk's first case of alien abduction isn't notability, then what will it take? The guy has already been abducted once, and now he seems to have vanished, the least we can do is bear witness to his legacy. Oh, and there are strong indications of substantial coverage in reliable sources, so it's a keep on that basis too. Because the abduction took place in 1957, we need those archives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. There is no need to keep this article to bear witness to his legacy. Where are these strong indications of substantial coverage in reliable sources? Better still, where is the actual coverage in reliable sources? Claiming you've been abducted by aliens does not make you notable, even if you're the first to do so. -Atmoz (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment From the article that's already there: He set up the "Church of Aquarius in the town. It became so popular that a second "church" was opened. Here, James "channeled" information from the elders of Zomdic. The church ran for 10 years before James disappeared from public view in 1969." Is someone going to claim there isn't substantial coverage for this guy, the alleged abduction, the ten years of his church?  I think not. Updating my vote to STRONG keep . ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the substantial coverage? There is one mention of him in a non-notable newspaper&mdash;the Warrington Guardian. Asserting that there is substantial coverage in reliable third party sources does not make it so. Please provide the evidence if you have any. -Atmoz (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately newspaper and magazine coverage from the 60s is hard to come by. But if we contact the library there, I'm sure they can help us. In the meantime let's keep this article so the information isn't lost due to technological bias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would like to contact the local library and begin providing the plethora of sources you seem certain exist, please be our guest. However, the onus is on you, not me, to prove that the sources actually exist. If you find you don't have the time to do it today but later find yourself in Runcorn library surrounded by a crush of sources about this guy, by all means ask an administrator to undelete so you can get access to this piece-of-you-know-what article. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Sadly, I can't find anything about this subject. Is it perhaps a hoax? Has a mass mind wiping and archive deleting taken place? We may never know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only source with any reliability for this story is a piece in a local paper, the Warrington Guardian; we used to have an article on that paper but it has itself been speedily deleted as not sufficiently notable. I don't think that passes WP:RS: it's not multiple sources, and the source we have isn't reliable enough. (I know the same information can be found on some UFO-believer web sites, but pardon me if I don't find that convincing either.) And even if there were better sources, I think that this fails WP:BIO1E unless the supposed church he founded can also be shown to be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree on at least one point. Whether a source is reliable or whether it is notable are two entirely different things. The paper can have a perfectly acceptable editorial fact checking guideline and still not be notable because no information can be found about the paper itself. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The one reference is an article that leads with "Do you have any UFO stories to add? If so, why not email us". We do not have to join in. --Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No matter how you feel about alien abduction claims, UFO believer sites are perfectly acceptable to verify the claimed "first UK abductee claim" since they're the most likely group to keep such records. Contrary to what someone else said, being the first of what has become a wide phenomenon is in my view inherently notable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. See WP:RS, particularly the two sections on self-published sources and on extremist and fringe sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources have been cited to verify that he actually was the first to be "abducted" as opposed to claiming or imagining he was abducted by a UFO. I might claim or imagine that I found a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That doesn't make it so, and it wouldn't make me or my claim encyclopedic, unless it received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   --  Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  06:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - I added a couple more refereces. Please note that sometimes he's refered to as "James Cook:, which could be affecting searches. Artw (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (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.