Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic)


 * 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  -  brenneman  00:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic)

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

Michael Cohen is a Psychic and UFOlogist with no apparent notability. The references given are hardly considered reliable sources except for perhaps the National Newspaper from the Barbados, which briefly mentions him at the end. kelapstick (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Indeed has no reliable sources.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, no reliable sources and doesn't seem notable. --Pstanton (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per failing WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  00:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep a Google search does infact bring up numerous articles and references to this person and some are arguably reliable, such as coast to coast, unkown country, not possible to list all references: numerous newspapers, he did break a signifant UFO event recently, Is regarded widely as one of Australias leading UFO researchers Starrion1 13:30 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If reliable sources are integrated into the article as references, there will be no problem passing the AfD, but simply saying that a Google search produces arguably reliable sources is not a valid argument in favour of keeping.--kelapstick (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Is notable by all standards Ozipeter
 * Comment The two supporters above have only contributed here or on the article in question. This does not invalidate their right to participate here. Peridon (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I have just looked at some of Michael Cohen's predictions for 2009. They remind me a bit of "it'll either rain or go dark before morning". No reliable sources cited in the article. In fact, the 'References' are a little hard to identify. Zoo Magazine? I hardly think interviewing (as I read it) Steve Irwin constitutes notability. (Pre- or post-decease?) A distinct hint of apparent puffery is believed to be present. Peridon (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be some wrong-headedness on this entry, the issue isnt whether Ufology is notable but whether Michael Cohen is a notable Ufologist-if one looks at the list of Ufologists, most have references no better-As far as Ufologists go Cohen is as notable as most of those with entries and undoubtedly notable with a substantial net presence-he has articles in the Fortean Timesetc: perhaps not regarded as reliable to some here but mainstream as far as Ufology goes. Ozipeter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozipeter (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like spam.--Peephole (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not saying ufology isn't notable or is rubbish - I've seen a flying object that didn't conform to the possible flight patterns of any 'earthly' craft. I'm not decrying psychic phenomena. I've done psychic research with both positive and negative results. This article says Mr Cohen is a ufologist, and no more about it. As to psychics (and mediums), I find most 'professional' ones to be quacks. Peridon (talk) 22:22, 1 February 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.