Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell pine

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. czar 04:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russell pine

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

Biographical article which is significantly copied from the subject's website. Earwig shows this quite clearly [[1]]. Unclear if subject is notable enough for their own article. Majority of references are to the subject's own website, or other conspiracy websites with no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Written in very promotional tone. Cowlibob (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable researcher in the occult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a good faith search for sources under his pen name "Jordan Maxwell" and found plenty of discussion in fringe sources, blogs and social media, but nothing significant in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising for an insignificant fringe theorist. 68.170.118.12 (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2016 (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.