The result was delete. 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC) reply
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
(restored comments by Sue Rangell)
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 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. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply
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. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
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 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 quality 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 jury to hear them.
The mere existence of a media circus doesn't make her notable, although if it was extensive enough (and, believe me, whatever "circus" there was was entirely minor and not teally of note) the circus itself might be notable, but that's not the case here, and if it was, it wouldn't necessarily make her notable per se.
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 all. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC): reply
The result was delete. 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC) reply
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
(restored comments by Sue Rangell)
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 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. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply
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. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
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 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 quality 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 jury to hear them.
The mere existence of a media circus doesn't make her notable, although if it was extensive enough (and, believe me, whatever "circus" there was was entirely minor and not teally of note) the circus itself might be notable, but that's not the case here, and if it was, it wouldn't necessarily make her notable per se.
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 all. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC): reply