1541:
go back to unverified claims by Ms Etok having done this and that. But the real danger that
Knowledge (XXG) faces is this - the article as originally written unequivocally says that she was a friend of Jacksons and makes several other attempts to reinforce that view, despite there not being any strong references to support those claims. As we all know, Knowledge (XXG) is often the first stop for journalists in a hurry who don't tend to question what they are reading, and some of them would repeat the claims with no further questioning. Then what do we get? Yes, we get an apparently independent news article claiming that she was a friend, and that's the start of a circular reference of a self-reinforcing "factoid" that was never properly proven. And given the evidence of the copyrighted studio photo, it seems extremely unlikely that editor Respect77 is unconnected with the source, and if that is the case then it might be argued that this is an attempt to manipulate the encyclopaedia, which is obviously something that we don't want.
411:- 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.
708:
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)
1450:
much anyone who seem to have even the merest sliver of legitimacy could get their 15 minutes of fame by giving out interviews, which were then used as the basis for more interveiws, etc. In the new media ecology, once something is "out there", even those media outlets that should know better will pick up the reports and repeat them, and the scandal-mongering entertainment press will report just about anything which will get a headline and keep people watching or reading. We, however, are an encyclopedia, and we have a much higher standard - or should, and do most of the time. Since we mostly deal with these things after the fact, we have the time to evaluate the
799:
2) I believe that you are both close to the subject of the article and the subject is not notable. 3) Yes, I checked all the photos, but you claim that you own the company that took it. You also claim that you downloaded it from the subject's web site. Which is it to be? I sent an email to the copyright owner to clarify. 4) You are threatening me now, you threatened me when you said "You have also made some comments in the article for deletion section about the subject in the article that could land you in legal hot water" on my talk page. 5) I am attempting to have the article removed because I believe that it is an abuse of process.
430:
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. --
629:- The deeper I look into this, the more apparent it becomes to me that Etok is a terrible self-propagandist and publicity-seeker. Her claims about herself are all over the place: businesswoman, model, intellectual property specialist, actor, with every self-generated non-reliable source the claims are different. I believe that she got a degree in materials science, was an editor for journals in that field, co-wrote some journal articles, and is (or was) connected with a museum, but almost everything else seems to be conjecture, spun out of the air.
774:
am close to the subject of the article. Please make up your mind which one. I am not close to the party in the srticle or have ever met this individual. There are 12 pages of google that have Dr Etok's picture on are you saying that you checked every single one? With respect to making legal threats, I did not threten you. You are the one who has been theatening me. Other editors have noted your behaviour. You have spent the last 24hours focused on killing my article at the bequest of
Michael Jackson fansRespect77 18:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
389:- 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. --
759:- which you uploaded to Knowledge (XXG)? It clearly says that you are the copyright holder, I cannot find a copy of that photograph anywhere else online. Either you are not the copyright holder, or you are related to the subject. Oh, and please don't try to insinuate that I have any interest in Michael Jackson at all, and I would appreciate it if you desisted from making vague legal threats as you did on my talk page.
250:(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. --
495:. 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.
1355:
She's writing a book that will be a bestseller. She has accolades from the London Museum of
Natural History, etc. but none of that matters. The woman, (Yes probably a fraud!) is the media equivalent of an atom bomb, she clearly cannot be ignored. There is absolutely zero doubt that she has "recieved significant attention from independent news sources".
1425:, and unsubstantiated claims of "fraud", etc., etc. will not offset the deluge of media that surrounds this woman. It doesn't matter if half of them are simply repeating her words. It doesn't matter if she is lying, etc. What does matter is that all eyes are on her. It's a media circus, and that makes her notable, now, at this moment. --
1147:
has had independent coverage from reliable sources, and in the end that is what will matter. The article has no chance of being deleted, no matter how many angry
Michael Jackson fans join in. The final consensus will come down to how much coverage this person has recieved, right or wrong, and she has recieved quite a bit. Be well. --
524:. 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.
1692:(@Thesteve) There's no need to wait for someone else with access to academic databases - I just checked Web of Science for "Etok S*" and it lists fifteen papers with citation counts of 11, 4, 1, 1 and the rest zero. Scopus lists six papers with citations of 14, 6, 1, 1, 0, 0. That is way, way below what is required for a pass of
992:- I do not appreciate having my posts removed from this discussion, nor do I wish to discuss this topic on my talk page. This discussion will remain here, or I will cease to participate in it, as there is no reason for me to make comments if they are simply going to be erased by others. Thank you and please restore my post. --
1556:
best-selling author at this date. Secondly, who are these "Michael
Jackson" fans? Which editors are you referring to? Thirdly, what is this deluge of media? Google news throws up two articles for the whole of 2012, only one of which might be citable. Are two articles in 2012 "the media equivalent of an atom bomb"?
1540:
The claims that Ms Etok makes of being a long-time friend of
Jackson's may well be true, but there are no reliable citations to back it up. I could post on my blog that I am Elvis Presley, it does not mean that I could cite it in a Knowledge (XXG) article about myself. Every single reference seems to
1456:
of these reports to see if they have real roots, or are essentially self-generated. In the case of Susan Etok, everything seems to emanate from her - even the "legal filings" in the doctor's trial are based on her statements to the defence, and the judge did not find them credible enough to allow the
1354:
Yes, yes, I have heard the cries of "unreliable source", "fraud", etc. It would not suprise me one bit if she is a fraud, most of these kinds of people are. But this particular fraud has been in literally thousands of news articles, TV, radio, NEWS magazines, etc etc. (Major names, not just tabloids)
832:
I guess we don't seem to be getting many replies from the original author, but here's another question.. you say "I am not a
Michael Jackson fan/non-fan", but if I type your editor name (Respect77) into Google.. well, what do you see? That's quite a coincidence. Is there some meaning the the username
798:
Respect77, perhaps you should take a leaf out of your username before you make wild accusations. Let me answer your questions point by point. 1) I don't care about
Michael Jackson one way or another, I noticed the article because a link was added to the "Notable People" list in the town where I live.
1502:
Well, you certainly make a well-thought-out and eloquitely spoken argument. Obviously I have to disagree with you this time around. Ultimately an admin will come along and either keep or delete this, and on we will all go to another adventure, correct my friend? Feel free to drop by my talk page and
1449:
If I may also argue the article's content, the problem with it is that all the coverage -- even that which comes from normally reliable sources -- is ultimately based on Susan Etok's own claims. In the wake of
Jackson's death, and the trial of the doctor, there was the usual media frenzy, and pretty
1107:
Let's not have an argument about it. None of this is worth that. I asked you to restore my comments. You have chosen not to do so. I am sure that you have your reasons. I accept them. It doesn't mean we have to dislike one another or anything like that. You seem like a decent sort of person to me, a
773:
Shritwood, you have tried to bully me all because I wrote an article about someone that you don't like and who said things about MIchael Jackson that you don't like. First all you tried to get the article deleted on the basis that the article is not about someone notable, now you are claiming that I
1146:
Oh no not at all. But thank you for asking. All of the arguments in favor of deleteing the article have to do with her being a fraud, which may well be true. (I really wouldn't know, I actually know nothing about the subject) However, notability has nothing to do with any of that. Fraud or not, she
1651:
There are no specific numbers ever given. However, I suspect you're exaggerating when you say "many hundreds". Also, citation rates differ for different disciplines. In addition, Google isn't exactly comprehensive in all disciplines. I will wait for someone who has alternate access to academic
1485:
As for her being a world-class hoaxer, I'm afraid she's really small potatoes. She got a bunch of people who will print anything to print her claims, but it really doesn't look as if anyone involved in serious journalism was taken in by her. I'm afraid that even as a liar, she is hardly notable at
1394:
and the circumstances in which it can be applied. While it surely is possible that the article will be kept -- although the consensus seems to be moving in the other direction -- "SNOW" just does not apply, since there is no unanimity, and the fate of the article is not a "foregone conclusion", as
707:
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
1446:
Let's say for the moment that you are right, and there is a "snowball's chance in hell of this article being deleted (I'm not an admin, but I don't think that's the case, but let's take it as given for now) - that doesn't equate to a "snow keep" close, it equates to a "no consensus", an entirely
1038:
stated that it was perfectly acceptable to quote an original post in a reply). However I am very human, and prone to any number of errors and amounts of ignorance, and your reputation is golden. I am sure that there is a very good rationale for the action, therefore, I will only say that another
1015:
Your comment was deleted because you copied another editor's question to you without his permission to do so. You're more than welcome to move your own words, and to characterize the question asked of you in your own words, but you should never move another editor's comments without permission.
1555:
Sue, I've read your comments quite closely but there are some things I just don't understand. One is that you say that "She's writing a book that will be a bestseller", but I wonder how you know that for certain? Yes, a best-selling author would likely pass notability criteria, but she is not a
449:
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
1859:
Yes, I've seen that just now; I wish you'd made that explicit earlier. So other than naming Susan Etok as a (the) director, the link doesn't have any information, although "IP & Media Ltd." would seem to imply an intellectual property & media consultancy. Since she has no training in
883:
Please inform us William Connolley what a Science Associate at NHM is. For your information, I have verified this with NHM and it is an accolade bestowed upon external researchers in recognition of their work. Science Associate is not a job title given to an employee at NHM Respect77 11:07, 28
813:
Another question for Respect77 - you say that "Dr Etok has been in the local newspapers alot and most recently last week". I checked the websites of Bedfordshire on Sunday, the Luton News, Herald & Post, the Luton and Dunstable Express, Bedford Times & Citizen, and The Comet (the local
1261:
So, what we sometimes do in these cases is to simply merge the non-biographical information about the involvement in the event into the even't article itself. As with other BLP1E's, at this point it's my opinion that this merits no more than a sourced paragraph in the Death of Michael Jackson
1298:
Is there any content worth merging? The Jackson trial judge "excluded a number of defense witnesses, including Etok, from testifying at the trial on the grounds that the subject matter of their testimony was sufficiently convoluted, distracting and detracting as to substantially outweigh any
429:
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
1734:
That would be getting a little off-topic. The long-standing convention is that h-index of 10 to 15 is the lower minimum (i.e. at least 100 to 200 citations) and this person is nowhere near these figures (and these are the GS numbers, not the more conservative WoS numbers). Thanks,
52:. Tricky one, this. Consensus seems to be that, whilst coverage exists, it is insufficiently reliable to warrant an article. Should the subject indeed write a bestselling book in the future, pass the professor test or become notable for other reasons, the article can be recreated.
1421:. It is a foregone conclusion, even if a few canvassed editors and Michael Jackson fans cannot see it. If someone spends their time in a swarm of Paparazzi, they are probably notable. This article should have never been brought up for AfD, and all of the "She's not notable!", and
1039:
editor attempted to carry this discussion onto my talk page, and I moved the conversation back here where it was then deleted by the same editor. I will not restore it, as I did not erase it, but those interested should have no trouble finding it in the archive. Be well. --
1397:
We also generally do not keep articles on the basis that there might be notability in the future. If that happens, the article can be re-created at that time, but we usualy don't keep it around on the off-chance that it might pass our guidelines in the future.
496:
450:"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)
1802:
She has set up some kind of media consultancy business. Such people are likely to promote themselves, calling the motivation behind the creation of the article into question. I would expect this activity to be mentioned in the article.
1238:* Her relationship with Michael Jackson cannot be established as a fact since all sources on this merely quote her, as journalists are wont to do. However, that is irrelevant because we all know that notability is not inherited.
608:". 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.
1273:
is another red light here. However, COI or whatever this is is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since we're not discussing who wrote the article or who provided the image, but whether or not the subject's bio merits
172:
814:
newspaper for Hitchin where you claim that the business you own is based) and I can't see any mention of Ms Etok since September 2009. I can't find any press reference at all since this article in March 2012 -
1072:
To clarify: you can quote, but you can't move the comment in its entirety - at least that how I understand it. In any event, all one has to do is ask if it's OK, and then you can use the entire comment. Best,
1183:
583:. 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.
1299:
probative value whatsoever": the allegation that Jackson offered her a loads of money for drugs is based solely on her saying so, and rather than denigrating Jackson or whatever (I am
947:- not what we want to be using as sources for BLPs or to establish notability. None of the references in the 'Early life and career' section are sufficient to establish notability and
125:
203:
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.
1712:
Ah! Very good. Now, for comparative purposes (and because I'm interested in such things) can you name 2 notable Materials Scientists and give their citation numbers. Thanks!
1860:
intellectual property law, and her media experience appears to be in putting over her fantasies to the media, I wish the best of luck to anybody who hires her as a consultant.
1230:. I suggest a compromise here that will enable us to keep some of the relevant information in the article and dispell the issues of COI and notability. Let's look at the facts:
166:
1284:
Maybe this isn't what the warring parties are looking for, but it's a good compromise, I think, and one that has precedent in AFD. And all of you need to chill out, too.
368:
Sorry, I didn't realise that it wasn't permitted. I felt that the article had changed very substantially since the AfD went up, but point noted and I won't do it again!
1203:
1281:
for having done so. I am always willing to revisit an AFD !vote, because the point of the deletion process is not to get rid of stuff, but to find reasons to keep it.
1845:
Sorry, you have to click the "People" tab in the second link. Didn't realise the link was not a direct connection. The company is cited as source by the imdb entry.
1367:
If the accusations against her are ever proven to be true, she would certainly be notable as a great hoaxter, as the fraud itself would be notable at this point. --
927:
is probably the highest quality source, but only mentions Etok very briefly. Sources that are more directly about her (but still really about Michael Jackson) like
1303:
a hysterical fan) is actually a claim for significance on Etok's part. Incidentally, what has she been doing since 2007, apart from possibly knitting socks for
1277:* To the claims of canvassing - yes, I was "canvassed" in the sense that I was asked to revisit my opinion in the light of additional information, and I thank
1256:* If her standalone notability is not enough to get through the GNG threshold, then this becomes a clear BLP1E issue, and as such the bio would merit deletion.
633:
One way or the other, the view of the subject that has emerged for me does not support her notability, and we should not reward her fantasies with an article.
631:
Unfortunately, given that conclusion, it's very difficult for me to believe that Respect77 is not connected in some way with Etok, or is perhaps Etok herself.
1235:* That this person was involved in the investigation(s) surrounding the death of Micheal Jackson is not under scrutiny here; that fact can be easily sourced.
1265:* I agree with the suspicions that other editors have raised about the involvement of the article's creator with the subject. The inclusion of Ms. Etok's
132:
1678:
My quick google scholar indicates that she has 2 papers (using yours, I see 4, with another couple of greyish ones). That's a clear fail (either way)
864:
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
1034:
Thank you for that clarification. In all of my years at Knowledge (XXG), I have never encountered that particular consensus, (in fact I thought that
564:
605:
212:
1817:
I see "Essien" and "Essien IP and Company", but I don't see any specific connection to Susan Essien Etok. Again, is there something I'm missing?
755:
I am curious, if you have no connection with Ms Etok, then how is that that you are the copyright holder of a studio photograph of the subject -
1344:- I think that some people are not understanding what notability actually means. In Knowledge (XXG), it means, and I quote from the guidelines,
1763:
98:
93:
102:
1466:
notable, although if it was extensive enough (and, believe me, whatever "circus" there was was entirely minor and not teally of note) the
1269:
and the names of her parents in the infobox, plus the existence of a studio-quality photograph that is tagged as having been submitted to
744:
1981:
doesn't even come close to meeting the general notability guidelines. It's just a lot of tabloid regurgitated speculation and gossip.
85:
932:
815:
17:
891:
I can find no such reference to her being a Science Associate at the NHM on their own web site. Please provide a reliable citation.
1088:
975:
or possibly merge to Michael Jackson: no convincing claim made of notability with respect to anything other than Jackson's death.
492:
187:
1941:, re Michael Jackson. Even the webpages and tabloid sources that named her solely in relation to Jackson's passing don't clear
790:
740:
724:
696:
529:
338:
310:
1141:
My comments about moving quotes was meant to be informative and not argumentative. I am restoring your comments as requested:
818:(which contains many unverified claims). Perhaps I missed all the articles in the local press? Can you give me some pointers?
248:
154:
1893:
1683:
928:
871:
466:
1786:
It's quote possible that I'm missing something. but I don't see in TheLongTone's links anything pertinent to this article.
1346:"there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources"
1516:
1434:
1376:
1156:
1117:
1058:
I daresay I could point you to a number of people who would dispute that my reputation is "golden", but my thanks anyway.
1048:
1001:
604:
Shritwod, the nominator, writes above that "I note that a request for creation was previously denied for similar reasons:
439:
398:
259:
62:
556:
2046:
505:
245:
40:
1390:@Sue: No one can argue with your perception of the article or the subject's notability, but you should take a look at
211:) 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Added: I note that a request for creation was previously denied for similar reasons:
924:
1596:
1091:. I think the "quoting" refers to a talk page reply, not moving a quote from a talk page to a project discussion.
525:
236:
148:
1365:
Can you, in your heart of hearts, truly believe that she is not notable, even if she's a complete and total fraud?
1249:. I am reversing my earlier !vote here, since it was made in the belief that this was the case. She does not meet
1889:
1679:
867:
1942:
1938:
2027:
2010:
1988:
1973:
1958:
1911:
1897:
1883:
1869:
1854:
1840:
1826:
1812:
1795:
1777:
1744:
1729:
1705:
1687:
1669:
1642:
1620:
1565:
1550:
1535:
1521:
1495:
1439:
1407:
1381:
1330:
1316:
1293:
1227:
1215:
1195:
1175:
1171:
1161:
1122:
1100:
1096:
1082:
1067:
1053:
1025:
1006:
984:
967:
900:
875:
842:
827:
808:
768:
660:
642:
617:
592:
571:
533:
516:
512:
444:
420:
403:
377:
361:
343:
315:
290:
264:
223:
67:
1652:
databases before I decide. Note that this doesn't change the fact that she meets the GNG from news sources.
1422:
144:
2023:
1985:
1865:
1822:
1791:
1531:
1491:
1403:
1326:
1078:
1063:
1021:
656:
638:
613:
588:
542:
357:
89:
778:
712:
684:
454:
2005:
1836:
1701:
1638:
1035:
194:
2042:
1907:
1850:
1808:
1773:
1513:
1431:
1373:
1312:
1153:
1114:
1045:
998:
980:
943:
651:
Struck part of my comments, as it's still possible Respect77 is simply a fan and not connected to Etok.
499:
436:
395:
256:
239:
36:
1630:
1592:
81:
73:
833:
that I'm not getting? It must also be a coincidence that the subject of the article was born in 1977?
1954:
1740:
1304:
920:
782:
732:
716:
688:
1768:
are informative about the subject, curious that no mention of this activity is made in the article.
1167:
1092:
786:
736:
720:
692:
508:
334:
306:
180:
816:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2605269/Michael-Jackson-wanted-British-doctors-baby.html
242:
2019:
1982:
1879:
1861:
1818:
1787:
1561:
1546:
1527:
1487:
1399:
1359:
She meets all notability guidlines unless you begin wikilawyering. That is why this article is a
1322:
1287:
1074:
1059:
1017:
896:
838:
823:
804:
764:
652:
634:
609:
584:
462:
416:
373:
353:
284:
219:
208:
278:
160:
1997:
1832:
1697:
1634:
1211:
1191:
963:
955:
502:
56:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2041:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1946:
1693:
1391:
1270:
1250:
948:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1996:- snow speedy as per previous comments - but as soon as the seven days is up also support -
1903:
1846:
1804:
1769:
1509:
1472:
might be notable, but that's not the case here, and if it was, it wouldn't necessarily make
1427:
1369:
1350:
1308:
1149:
1110:
1041:
994:
976:
432:
391:
252:
1888:
Isn't the fact that she is so NN that no-one can work out her current occupation relevant?
1363:, and as time goes on, well, wait until her book is out, it will all start all over again.
1246:
916:
912:
677:
580:
274:
1968:
1950:
1736:
488:
352:
I have left a message on Shritwod's talk page asking him not the do any more canvassing.
233:
1629:
Those Google Scholar results show a grand total of 19 citations to her work. A pass of
330:
302:
1967:. The sources that mention her in passing don't seem sufficient to claim notability.
1875:
1713:
1653:
1604:
1557:
1542:
1278:
892:
834:
819:
800:
760:
484:
458:
412:
369:
215:
204:
756:
1348:
Now compare that to one of literally thousands of articles out there such as this:
1207:
1187:
959:
53:
119:
937:
507:
This is concocted, tabloid stuff IMO. Why is her height given in the infobox?
1766:
1253:
or any of the other critera, as a journalist, or scientist or anything else.
2018:- Claiming to be a friend of someone notable does not make you notable too.
1419:
But there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this article being deleted
952:
919:
both require sources where the person is the subject of the article -
1526:
OK, we'll agree to disagree, absolutely no problem with that. Best,
1874:
There's a celebrity gossip site at essientv.com run by the subject.
935:
are based off interviews that Etok gave to tabloid sources such as
300:- Sources support notability. As I see it it's as simple as that.--
1262:
article. I am volunteering to perform the merge. Two final things:
1245:
to Michael Jackon's death is in my opinion not enough to get past
2035:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1591:
From the sources on her article, meets the GNG. Likely meets
1184:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
324:
on further examination of the sources but also I note I was
1417:
Thank you, I am well aware of Knowledge (XXG) proceedures.
866:
are complete jokes, and show a total lack of understanding
1351:
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/P25xMPEUly_/Dr+Etok+at+LAX
325:
115:
111:
107:
1937:. There is no actual claim for notability in light of
606:
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Susan_Essien_Etok
213:
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Susan_Essien_Etok
179:
1503:
say hello. I have to travel in the morning. Be well.
757:
http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Dr_Susan_Essien_Etok.jpg
921:
you can't be notable just for being somone's friend
541:Quite simply, it passes the notability guidelines.
193:
1460:The mere existence of a media circus doesn't make
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2049:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1633:generally requires many hundreds of citations.
8:
1204:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
1202:Note: This debate has been included in the
1182:Note: This debate has been included in the
277:and I don't think what's there is a case of
680:. Respect77 11:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
1201:
1181:
951:is clearly not met either - she has an
1949:is not satisfied, as indicated above.
230:Strong SNOW keep and request to close
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1603:back up her scientific credentials.
1089:Knowledge (XXG):Talk page guidelines
501:, or her self published dissertation
1143:(restored comments by Sue Rangell)
493:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
1108:good Wikipedian. So no worries! --
24:
990:Please restore my previous post
1:
1989:01:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
1974:23:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
1959:20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
1912:19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1898:18:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1884:15:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1870:12:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1855:12:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1841:12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1827:12:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1813:12:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1796:11:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1778:11:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1745:20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
1730:09:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1706:09:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1688:09:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1670:09:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1643:08:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1621:08:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1566:15:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1551:08:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1536:05:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1522:05:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1496:05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1440:05:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1408:05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1382:04:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1331:03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1317:03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1294:02:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1216:02:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1196:02:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1176:00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
1162:23:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
1123:04:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1101:01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1083:01:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1068:01:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1054:00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1026:00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1007:23:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
985:23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
968:22:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
901:12:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
876:10:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
843:16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
828:23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
809:19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
769:12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
661:20:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
643:20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
618:08:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
593:06:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
572:04:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
534:03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
517:01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
445:02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
421:00:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
404:00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
378:08:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
362:00:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
344:00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
316:00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
291:23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
265:23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
224:22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
2028:23:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
2011:22:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
68:10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
2066:
1831:I am similarly perplexed.
1395:required for a SNOW close.
923:. Looking at the sources,
483:Agree with points made by
1036:Knowledge (XXG):Etiquette
498:or are youTube ridiculous
2038:Please do not modify it.
1228:Death of Michael Jackson
273:Certainly seems to pass
32:Please do not modify it.
1357:Can anyone argue this?
944:Entertainment Tonight
745:few or no other edits
526:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
487:. Sources don't meet
1890:William M. Connolley
1680:William M. Connolley
925:this in the Guardian
868:William M. Connolley
747:outside this topic.
504:, or are irrelevant.
884:December 2012 (UTC)
1457:jury to hear them.
1224:Redirect and merge
339:List of good deeds
311:List of good deeds
293:
48:The result was
1972:
1241:* Her notability
1218:
1198:
795:
781:comment added by
748:
729:
715:comment added by
701:
687:comment added by
570:
471:
457:comment added by
269:
82:Susan Essien Etok
74:Susan Essien Etok
2057:
2040:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1971:
1727:
1726:
1723:
1720:
1717:
1667:
1666:
1663:
1660:
1657:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1608:
1520:
1519:
1447:different thing.
1438:
1437:
1380:
1379:
1321:Self-promotion?
1292:
1290:
1160:
1159:
1121:
1120:
1052:
1051:
1005:
1004:
862:- comments like
794:
775:
730:
728:
709:
700:
681:
567:
561:
554:
551:
546:
470:
451:
443:
442:
402:
401:
342:
341:
314:
313:
289:
287:
263:
262:
198:
197:
183:
135:
123:
105:
65:
59:
34:
2065:
2064:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2047:deletion review
2036:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1943:WP:NOTTEMPORARY
1939:WP:NOTINHERITED
1724:
1721:
1718:
1715:
1714:
1664:
1661:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1615:
1612:
1609:
1606:
1605:
1599:results, which
1512:
1508:
1430:
1426:
1372:
1368:
1288:
1285:
1152:
1148:
1113:
1109:
1044:
1040:
997:
993:
776:
710:
682:
565:
557:
547:
544:
491:. Doesn't meet
452:
435:
431:
394:
390:
333:
329:
305:
301:
285:
282:
255:
251:
140:
131:
96:
80:
77:
63:
57:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2063:
2061:
2052:
2051:
2031:
2030:
2013:
1991:
1976:
1962:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1799:
1798:
1781:
1780:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1709:
1708:
1696:in any field.
1690:
1673:
1672:
1646:
1645:
1624:
1623:
1597:Google Scholar
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1423:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1412:
1411:
1385:
1384:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1282:
1275:
1263:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1220:
1219:
1199:
1168:MathewTownsend
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1093:MathewTownsend
1029:
1028:
1010:
1009:
987:
970:
906:
905:
904:
903:
886:
885:
878:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
750:
749:
702:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
646:
645:
621:
620:
596:
595:
574:
536:
519:
509:MathewTownsend
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
424:
423:
406:
383:
382:
381:
380:
365:
364:
347:
346:
319:
294:
267:
201:
200:
137:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2062:
2050:
2048:
2044:
2039:
2033:
2032:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2020:Theroadislong
2017:
2014:
2012:
2009:
2001:
1995:
1992:
1990:
1987:
1984:
1980:
1977:
1975:
1970:
1966:
1963:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1862:Beyond My Ken
1858:
1857:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1819:Beyond My Ken
1816:
1815:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1801:
1800:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1788:Beyond My Ken
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1764:
1762:
1759:
1758:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1728:
1711:
1710:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1671:
1668:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1622:
1619:
1602:
1598:
1595:based on her
1594:
1590:
1587:
1586:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:Beyond My Ken
1525:
1524:
1523:
1518:
1515:
1511:
1506:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1488:Beyond My Ken
1483:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1471:
1470:
1469:circus itself
1465:
1464:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1436:
1433:
1429:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1400:Beyond My Ken
1393:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1383:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1352:
1347:
1343:
1342:Two Questions
1340:
1339:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1323:Beyond My Ken
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1289:FreeRangeFrog
1283:
1280:
1279:User:Shritwod
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:Best wishes,
1164:
1163:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1144:
1124:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:Beyond My Ken
1071:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:Beyond My Ken
1057:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:Beyond My Ken
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1003:
1000:
996:
991:
988:
986:
982:
978:
974:
971:
969:
965:
961:
957:
954:
950:
946:
945:
940:
939:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
911:
908:
907:
902:
898:
894:
890:
889:
888:
887:
882:
879:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
858:
857:
844:
840:
836:
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
817:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
797:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:
752:
751:
746:
742:
738:
734:
726:
722:
718:
714:
706:
703:
698:
694:
690:
686:
679:
675:
672:
671:
662:
658:
654:
653:Beyond My Ken
650:
649:
648:
647:
644:
640:
636:
635:Beyond My Ken
632:
628:
625:
624:
623:
622:
619:
615:
611:
610:Beyond My Ken
607:
603:
600:
599:
598:
597:
594:
590:
586:
585:Beyond My Ken
582:
578:
575:
573:
568:
562:
560:
553:
552:
550:
540:
537:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
500:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
468:
464:
460:
456:
448:
447:
446:
441:
438:
434:
428:
427:
426:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
405:
400:
397:
393:
388:
385:
384:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
354:Beyond My Ken
351:
350:
349:
348:
345:
340:
336:
332:
327:
323:
320:
318:
317:
312:
308:
304:
299:
295:
292:
288:
286:FreeRangeFrog
280:
276:
272:
268:
266:
261:
258:
254:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
234:
231:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
214:
210:
206:
196:
192:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:Find sources:
138:
134:
130:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2037:
2034:
2015:
1993:
1978:
1964:
1934:
1833:Phil Bridger
1760:
1698:Phil Bridger
1635:Phil Bridger
1600:
1588:
1504:
1484:
1479:
1474:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1459:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1418:
1396:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1300:
1266:
1242:
1223:
1165:
1145:
1142:
989:
972:
942:
936:
909:
880:
863:
859:
777:β Preceding
711:β Preceding
704:
683:β Preceding
673:
630:
626:
601:
576:
558:
548:
543:
538:
521:
480:
453:β Preceding
408:
386:
321:
297:
296:
270:
229:
202:
190:
184:
176:
169:
163:
157:
151:
141:
128:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1904:TheLongTone
1847:TheLongTone
1805:TheLongTone
1770:TheLongTone
1631:WP:Academic
1593:WP:Academic
1510:Sue Rangell
1428:Sue Rangell
1370:Sue Rangell
1309:TheLongTone
1150:Sue Rangell
1111:Sue Rangell
1087:Please see
1042:Sue Rangell
995:Sue Rangell
977:TheLongTone
743:) has made
433:Sue Rangell
392:Sue Rangell
322:Weak Delete
253:Sue Rangell
167:free images
1969:SlimVirgin
1951:Agricola44
1737:Agricola44
1274:inclusion.
938:The Mirror
2043:talk page
1361:Snow Keep
1208:β’ Gene93k
1188:β’ Gene93k
783:Respect77
733:Respect77
717:Respect77
689:Respect77
549:Strikeout
545:Automatic
331:Gilderien
326:canvassed
303:Gilderien
37:talk page
2045:or in a
1945:. Also,
1876:Shritwod
1558:Shritwod
1543:Shritwod
1478:notable
893:Shritwod
835:Shritwod
820:Shritwod
801:Shritwod
791:contribs
779:unsigned
761:Shritwod
741:contribs
725:contribs
713:unsigned
697:contribs
685:unsigned
485:Shritwod
467:contribs
459:Shritwod
455:unsigned
413:Shritwod
370:Shritwod
281:at all.
279:WP:BLP1E
216:Shritwod
205:Shritwod
126:View log
39:or in a
1947:WP:PROF
1761:Comment
1694:WP:PROF
1453:quality
1392:WP:SNOW
1305:Bubbles
1271:WP:OTRS
1251:WP:PROF
960:SmartSE
953:h-index
949:WP:PROF
881:Comment
705:Comment
602:Comment
409:Comment
387:Comment
173:WPΒ refs
161:scholar
99:protect
94:history
54:Yunshui
2016:Delete
2003:really
1994:Delete
1986:regard
1983:Rotten
1979:Delete
1965:Delete
1935:Delete
1480:per se
1267:height
1247:WP:GNG
973:Delete
917:WP:GNG
913:WP:BIO
910:Delete
860:delete
678:WP:GNG
627:Delete
581:WP:GNG
522:Delete
481:Delete
275:WP:GNG
232:- per
145:Google
103:delete
50:delete
1902:Very.
1486:all.
1243:prior
956:of 2!
489:WP:RS
188:JSTOR
149:books
133:Stats
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
2024:talk
1955:talk
1908:talk
1894:talk
1880:talk
1866:talk
1851:talk
1837:talk
1823:talk
1809:talk
1792:talk
1774:talk
1765:and
1741:talk
1702:talk
1684:talk
1639:talk
1601:also
1589:Keep
1562:talk
1547:talk
1532:talk
1492:talk
1404:talk
1327:talk
1313:talk
1212:talk
1192:talk
1172:talk
1097:talk
1079:talk
1064:talk
1022:talk
981:talk
964:talk
941:and
933:this
931:and
929:this
915:and
897:talk
872:talk
839:talk
824:talk
805:talk
787:talk
765:talk
737:talk
721:talk
693:talk
676:per
674:Keep
657:talk
639:talk
614:talk
589:talk
579:per
577:Keep
539:Keep
530:talk
513:talk
463:talk
417:talk
374:talk
358:talk
335:Chat
307:Chat
298:Keep
271:Keep
220:talk
209:talk
181:FENS
155:news
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
2007:can
1999:You
1725:ve
1719:e S
1665:ve
1659:e S
1616:ve
1610:e S
1475:her
1463:her
1301:not
1226:To
328:.--
195:TWL
124:β (
2026:)
1957:)
1910:)
1896:)
1882:)
1868:)
1853:)
1839:)
1825:)
1811:)
1794:)
1776:)
1743:)
1722:te
1716:Th
1704:)
1686:)
1662:te
1656:Th
1641:)
1613:te
1607:Th
1564:)
1549:)
1534:)
1514:β
1507:--
1505::)
1498::
1494:)
1432:β
1406:)
1374:β
1329:)
1315:)
1214:)
1206:.
1194:)
1186:.
1174:)
1154:β
1115:β
1099:)
1081:)
1066:)
1046:β
1024:)
999:β
983:)
966:)
958:.
899:)
874:)
841:)
826:)
807:)
793:)
789:β’
767:)
739:β’
731:β
727:)
723:β’
699:)
695:β’
659:)
641:)
616:)
591:)
563:β’
532:)
515:)
469:)
465:β’
437:β
419:)
396:β
376:)
360:)
257:β
247:,
244:,
241:,
238:,
235:,
222:)
175:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
2022:(
1961:.
1953:(
1906:(
1892:(
1878:(
1864:(
1849:(
1835:(
1821:(
1807:(
1790:(
1772:(
1747:.
1739:(
1700:(
1682:(
1637:(
1560:(
1545:(
1530:(
1517:β
1490:(
1482:.
1435:β
1402:(
1377:β
1325:(
1311:(
1307:?
1286:Β§
1210:(
1190:(
1170:(
1157:β
1118:β
1095:(
1077:(
1062:(
1049:β
1020:(
1002:β
979:(
962:(
895:(
870:(
837:(
822:(
803:(
785:(
763:(
735:(
719:(
691:(
655:(
637:(
612:(
587:(
569:)
566:C
559:T
555:(
528:(
511:(
461:(
440:β
415:(
399:β
372:(
356:(
337:|
309:|
283:Β§
260:β
218:(
207:(
199:)
191:Β·
185:Β·
177:Β·
170:Β·
164:Β·
158:Β·
152:Β·
147:(
139:(
136:)
129:Β·
122:)
84:(
64:ζ°΄
61:β
58:ι²
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.