466:
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
352:
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
255:
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
274:
Knowledge (XXG) 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
296:
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
501:
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
425:
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. -
127:
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
403:: 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
337:
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.
236:. 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.
120:
156:
525:
353:
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.
87:
82:
91:
297:
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
378:
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.
323:. Asserting that there is substantial coverage in reliable third party sources does not make it so. Please provide the evidence if you have any. -
74:
399:; 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
17:
553:- I added a couple more refereces. Please note that sometimes he's refered to as "James Cook:, which could be affecting searches.
539:
577:
445:. 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
36:
562:
544:
511:
492:
474:
458:
433:
416:
387:
362:
347:
332:
310:
284:
265:
245:
220:
195:
171:
145:
56:
358:
141:
383:
343:
306:
261:
78:
576:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
488:
412:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
472:
431:
70:
62:
191:
354:
137:
129:
379:
339:
302:
257:
537:
484:
408:
396:
320:
208:
468:
454:
427:
256:
it's a keep on that basis too. Because the abduction took place in 1957, we need those archives.
483:, particularly the two sections on self-published sources and on extremist and fringe sources. —
404:
319:
Where is the substantial coverage? There is one mention of him in a non-notable newspaper—the
187:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
507:
241:
167:
229:
204:
133:
328:
280:
216:
480:
400:
558:
532:
395:. The only source with any reliability for this story is a piece in a local paper, the
233:
450:
183:
50:
108:
503:
237:
163:
324:
276:
212:
554:
232:. His claim to have been abducted to the planet Zomdic by a UFO also fails
407:
unless the supposed church he founded can also be shown to be notable. —
211:, but I don't think there is anything worth merging into that article. -
275:
aliens does not make you notable, even if you're the first to do so. -
570:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
497:
No reliable sources have been cited to verify that he actually
186:. Not enough material here for its own article as nom says.
132:-type case. As such, I submit he is not notable per our
115:
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
580:). No further edits should be made to this page.
157:list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions
8:
526:list of People-related deletion discussions
524:: This debate has been included in the
155:: This debate has been included in the
182:to a general article on the topic of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
502:reliable and independent sources.
24:
1:
563:20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
545:06:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
512:05:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
493:23:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
475:10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
459:04:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
434:10:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
417:02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
388:04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
363:04:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
348:03:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
333:02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
311:23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
285:02:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
266:23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
246:18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
221:17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
196:17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
172:15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
146:15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
57:03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
467:view inherently notable. -
597:
203:Non-notable person, fails
573:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
207:. Could be merged into
71:James Cooke (abductee)
63:James Cooke (abductee)
449:have to join in. --
397:Warrington Guardian
321:Warrington Guardian
209:Abduction claimants
44:The result was
547:
529:
174:
160:
588:
575:
535:
530:
520:
355:ScienceApologist
161:
151:
138:ScienceApologist
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
596:
595:
591:
590:
589:
587:
586:
585:
584:
578:deletion review
571:
542:
533:
380:ChildofMidnight
340:ChildofMidnight
303:ChildofMidnight
258:ChildofMidnight
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
594:
592:
583:
582:
566:
565:
548:
540:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
485:David Eppstein
479:Not true. See
461:
439:
438:
437:
436:
420:
419:
409:David Eppstein
390:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
314:
313:
290:
289:
288:
287:
269:
268:
248:
223:
198:
176:
175:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
593:
581:
579:
574:
568:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
546:
543:
538:
536:
527:
523:
519:
513:
509:
505:
500:
496:
495:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
473:
470:
465:
462:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
440:
435:
432:
429:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
373:
364:
360:
356:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
308:
304:
300:
295:
292:
291:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
249:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:verifiability
231:
227:
224:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
197:
193:
189:
185:
184:UFO abduction
181:
178:
177:
173:
169:
165:
158:
154:
150:
149:
148:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
572:
569:
550:
521:
498:
463:
446:
442:
392:
375:
298:
293:
251:
250:
225:
200:
188:Steve Dufour
179:
152:
136:guidelines.
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
299:STRONG keep
252:Strong Keep
228:as failing
130:WP:ONEEVENT
534:Raven1977
541:My edits
451:Johnuniq
405:WP:BIO1E
121:View log
294:Comment
164:J.Mundo
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
504:Edison
443:Delete
393:Delete
376:Delete
238:Edison
230:WP:BIO
226:Delete
205:WP:BIO
201:Delete
134:WP:BIO
116:delete
92:delete
46:delete
481:WP:RS
401:WP:RS
325:Atmoz
277:Atmoz
213:Atmoz
180:Merge
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
559:talk
555:Artw
551:keep
522:Note
508:talk
489:talk
464:Keep
455:talk
413:talk
384:talk
359:talk
344:talk
329:talk
307:talk
281:talk
262:talk
242:talk
217:talk
192:talk
168:talk
153:Note
142:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
531:--
528:.
499:was
469:Mgm
447:not
428:Mgm
159:.
561:)
510:)
491:)
457:)
415:)
386:)
361:)
346:)
331:)
309:)
301:.
283:)
264:)
244:)
219:)
194:)
170:)
144:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
557:(
506:(
487:(
471:|
453:(
430:|
411:(
382:(
357:(
342:(
327:(
305:(
279:(
260:(
240:(
215:(
190:(
166:(
162:—
140:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.