Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella-Jade Wiliams

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella-Jade Wiliams[edit]

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

This article appears to be a hoax. Though the article asserts that Isabella-Jade Wiliams is one of Australia's most prominent ballroom dancers, there are no reliable sources to verify this. A Google search returns no evidence to demonstrate that she is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). A Google News Archive search returns no relevant results. The article cites the Sydney Morning Herald as a source, but there is no evidence that she was covered on smh.com.au.

This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Notability (people). If reliable sources can be found to demonstrate that Wiliams exists and is notable, I will withdraw this AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Can't find mention of her famous parents either. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the nominator's Google search, there is a book by "Books LLC" (is that a respected publisher and a reliable source, or a vanity press?) with info about an Australian dancer of that name, and there seems to be a Facebook page. The article claims some coverage in Australian pape5s, but does not provide date of publication, and nothing with the unusual spelling of Wiliams" shows up about such an Australian dancer at Google News archive. I could not find mention of her or the particular news article about her cited as a ref in the archives of the Morning Herald, but archive searches don't always turn up articles which a paper actually ran. Appears to fail notability and verifiability of claims to notability, unless someone can provide some references to bear out the claims. Edison (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that book is a compilation of Wikipedia articles... Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commment Near as I can tell, everything by Books LLC is direct copies of Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure what that might mean in terms of copyright, but it might be something to be concerned about. Edward321 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what I wrote last year on the talk page of the article in question:

"I am pretty uncomfortable with this article. It may be a fake, invented by the first contributor. I have been unable to verify the existance of the supposed subject of the article; on Google only mirror sites come up. I have also failed to find her supposed partner "Michael Myan", and fail to find anything on the newspaper websites; you notice no links are given, but I went into those websites with no luck". Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2010 (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.