Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Essien Etok

Susan Essien Etok

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason: Not a notable person. Citations and references are not notable, many of which are simply links to the subject's own blog. Many of the citations lead to unverified claims. Shritwod (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Added: I note that a request for creation was previously denied for similar reasons: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Susan_Essien_Etok Shritwod (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong SNOW keep and request to close - per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (and much much more) It is puzzling how an article about somebody can find it's way to AfD when there is coverage of this person on at least six major news networks across four continents, plus magazines like the London Mirror, Daily Star, LA Times, USA Today, The Sun, etc. etc. As an assumption of good faith, I am going to assume that the nominator intended to nominate a different article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly seems to pass WP:GNG and I don't think what's there is a case of WP:BLP1E at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources support notability. As I see it it's as simple as that.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Truth be told, I never heard of this person before this AfD as wierd as that may seem to some people. But now that I have looked into this, I can see why she may be upsetting a lot of Michael Jackson fans. The bottom line is that the MJ drama doesn't really come into this. She was very notable prior to ever meeting him. Things like being a Scientific Associate at the Natural History Museum in London make her very notable. And like Andy Warhol, MJ liked to surround himself with others who were notable in their own right. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I absolutely do recommend this article to be deleted. Let's look at the Michael Jackson connection first: there are absolutely no independent sources that make a connection between the subject and Michael Jackson, but there are several that carry uncorroborated claims of some sort of relationship, the primary source appears to be the subject herself. Some of these claims make no sense - she is quoted as being a medic, but she is a PhD, not a medical doctor. Secondly, this person is just a PhD holder that works in a museum, and there are lots of people like that. Although there are reliable citations for some articles, there are only some very poor secondary sources for editor work. And I don't think that being a news editor for a trade journal counts as being notable. Finally, I suspect that the person who wrote the article is either the subject or someone closely related, several edits were made by 86.13.229.160, which is an IP address in the same geographical area as the subject. Shritwod (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel. This person could be a complete fraud. I understand that. But being a fraud does not exclude her from an encyclopedia article. To perform a fraud on this scale is notable in and of itself. I never heard of this woman before today, but I see you-tube copies of her interviews, articles in the most major of publications, and sourced affirmations that she was notable prior to any association with MJ. Perhaps you are right, these sources are unreliable, but that would make her one of the most major hoaxsters in the last 100 years or so, and that by itself would warrant an article if true. There is simply no way around this. I would suggest that if you think she's a fraud that you put the info into the article, because there is no chance that this article will be deleted with all of the sourcing and citations it has from major news outlets. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is presenting conjecture as fact. The only notable thing about this person is that they claim to know Michael Jackson. But the evidence provided doesn't support that. The news reports are based on gossip and apparent self-promotion, even the news outlets use qualifying words such as "claim" to indicate that they are not asserting them as facts. Yes, you could re-write the article to say that she *claims* these things, but they should not be represented within the entry as verified facts. 02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shritwod (talk • contribs)

Delete Agree with points made by Shritwod. Sources don't meet WP:RS. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Where are the citations for "coverage of this person on at least six major news networks across four continents, plus magazines like the London Mirror, Daily Star, LA Times, USA Today, The Sun, etc. etc."? It's ridiculous that she was offered $500,000 to be Michael Jackson's doctor when she isn't even a physician and can't "provide drugs to Jackson" anyway. The sources aren't reliable e.g.[7] or are youTube ridiculous[8], or her self published dissertation[9], or are irrelevant.[10] This is concocted, tabloid stuff IMO. Why is her height given in the infobox? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant, reliable sourcing evidencing notability. Subject is on the fringes of the Michael Jackson death aftermath-circus, and rather than genuine coverage, all we have is media repetition of a wholly unsubstantiated claim made by the subject herself, which really wouldn't indicate notability even if it could be verified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite simply, it passes the notability guidelines. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. There are sufficient citations from reliable sources to confirm the more important claims made here. The article could use more and better sourcing, but that's not sufficient grounds for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shritwod, the nominator, writes above that "I note that a request for creation was previously denied for similar reasons: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Susan_Essien_Etok". However, in all fairness, that AfC request was for a sub-stub article that had 3 sentences and two sources. It is is no way comparable to the article currently under discussion, and really shouldn't have been brought up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shritwood - I have read your updates with interest. I can't help but feel very attacked by your comments - I am not a Michael Jackson fan/non-fan. I am the author of this article. I have no connection whatsoever with Dr Etok, I have never met here. Dr Etok has been in the local newspapers alot and most recently last week. This was my motivation for writing the article. I have also notice that Shritwood has removed genuine and credible references from the article - another editor has already commented on this. Also, many of the comments that Shritwood has made have been unfounded - the article is based on genuine quotes from credible new sources e.g HLN, ET, TMZ, The Sun, The Mirror, The Guardian, and not a blog. Shritwood may not believe the story but not one credible news source has called into question the facts of this story. It would appear to the untrained eye that Shritwood is closer to this story that meets the eye. I believe your opinion is biased.Respect77 09:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs)