Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Idubor

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. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Idubor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN as she does not have any notable accolades, nor have any of her works charted anywhere nor is she regarded as significant in her field. She also does not meet WP:NACTOR as she has not starred in multiple notable productions. She also does not meet WP:GNG as she does not have significant coverage in reliable published sources. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search shows notability.

The sources cited in the article are promotional press releases and two of them are rehashings of each other. Literally just copy and paste. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff-piece, notability not established. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. This article has all the tale signs of UPE also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Spiderone & @Oaktree b you guys really wanna know what’s sad & funny at the same time? I did a little investigating of my own and I discovered that the only two sources which are closest to reliable(but aren’t in this context) are this & this which are both undoubtedly paid for. The former was published on February 19th(two days ago) & the latter, on the 15th(six days ago) then the Wikipedia article on her was created today(February 21) two days after this publication so if I were to make an educated guess I’d say she decided to have a Wikipedia presence(to boost her notability status & whatnot) then proceeded to pay the aforementioned sources for articles on her, then unfortunately for her and fortunately for us, she decided to employ the services of (in my opinion), arguably one of the most incompetent,inexperienced, & clueless UPE editors in Nigeria. And all this stress for what? only for the article to end up at AFD where it would be thrashed & all that money wasted. It’s like I said earlier, funny & sad at the same time. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 - is there really that much money involved in having a Wikipedia article? I've seen several people go through great lengths, even in just the past week, to have their vanity/COI articles published here. Surely that time is better spent actually trying to be notable or significant so as to qualify for one? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone, in Nigeria, from what my informants tell me, UPE is really big buck$ amongst the UPE ring in Nigeria who charge as high as $150 for biographical articles & $300 for an article on an organization & those UPE editors also collect from those client of theirs every month what they term “Article maintenance fee”(you know, the Orangemoody modus operandi, which is just blatant extortion & blackmail) I just feel sad for her because as you rightfully said if the subject dedicates more time in actually being or achieving true notability they wouldn’t have to spend a dime for a biographical piece on her. It’s sad really. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just to pile it on, she has no media presence beyond the obvious paid sources as described by my colleagues above. I also found that while the article claims that she has been in 22 films, IMDb and similar services only list her in two films, and there is clearly no shortage of info on Nollywood in that realm. Her music releases have not risen beyond the same paid sources, and they don't seem to be very effective. Her eponymous foundation is also only present in its own social media self-promotions. I sure hope she's not claiming to be a philanthropist to further her career. And if she really is a philanthropist, that is a far better use of her time and money. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to nominate this myself. Agree with everything said above. This is an advert pretending to be an encyclopaedia article, and the timing and repeated recreations strongly suggest an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for raising the subject's prominence. I too suspect UPE. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone how can I add the paid can you help me add it to the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentuzoma (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innocentuzoma - Please follow Template:Paid Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Idubor Article has been Declared Paid at the talk page section Please sir can you release the article thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentuzoma (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not until sources are provided that establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANITY. ——Serial 11:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page of a non-notable individual. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Innocentuzoma - have you managed to find any more sources to establish notability? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.