Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudi Charles Loehwing
=[[Rudi Charles Loehwing]]=
:{{la|Rudi Charles Loehwing}} – (
:({{findsources|Rudi Charles Loehwing}})
No evidence from WP:RS that this person exists... in other words, this article violates WP:V. The organization, World Institute of Natural Health Sciences, appears to exist but does not have an article (at best it is a non-notable organization), and indeed said article was deleted as a copyvio after being created by User:Loehwing. Said author has also edited this article, indicating WP:COI, and the article is laced with irrelevant puffery and no references. The [http://www.winhs.org/contact/index.htm WINHS website] contains no reference to such a person, but the "media contact" is one rudil, whom I believe to be this person. Ultimately this appears to be part of a walled garden attempt to hoax and/or spam us. Likewise, this person is alleged to be a baron but that can hardly be verified either (using reliable sources regarding peerage, etc.). Unless any of these claims can be verified, I recommend deletion. --Kinu t/c 02:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- This [http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=597166570&ref=search&sid=302587.3032269007..1 Facebook] search result seems to confirm this is spam, spam, wonderful spam. As I've already created this AfD, I'll let another user determine whether this should just be a speedy. Kind of embarrassing that this article has existed for so long... --Kinu t/c 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- 15px Delete — Looks like spam to me, however, I'll let some other editors delve a little deeper. ℳøℕø 04:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, a badly-written article about a legitimately notable person can still be deleted if it doesn't do a good job of explaining why the person is notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia. That said, given the evidence here, this guy doesn't even fall into that bucket; I'm not even seeing any verifiable notability here in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
: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.