Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Wood Post (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 19:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Wood Post

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

Guess what, no consensus again, so I'll just say the same thing as last time:

Only sources are citations from Snopes, Forbes, and other sites that use it as a source. Using as a source ≠ notability. Other sources were dug up in the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus", but the sources did not seem to be reliable extensive coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 22:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:WEBSITE. Coverage by cited sources is trivial and does not meet the standard in WP:GNG. A Google failed to yield anything that really rings the notability bell. Article is clearly PROMOTIONAL thus also failing WP:NOT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I clicked through the sources made available during the first AFD, and I saw nothing directly covering the subject in reliable sources. I saw several instances where the site's faux-headlines drew brief refutation. I saw several bare mentions. I saw nothing actually covering the site, its organizers or writers. A reasonable search brings up this bare mention in the company of much more notable competitors. In this case I don't think a search for offline sources would bear fruit. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep under WP:SPEEDY #2A as frivolous or vexatious nomination. Three nominations, all by the same nominator, all in two months. Anarchangel (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there are these sources. Show me the rule that says that relying on something as a source makes them less important than talking about them. Are there any sources that Wikipedia relies on as sources that do not have articles, for example? Plenty of articles about sources that WP does not count as reliable, though. Absurd pseudo-logic. Anarchangel (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harbison, C. (2014-05-13). "Football Player AJ McCarron Flaunts Sexual Orientation On Live Television: Free Wood Post Satire Article Has Internet In An Uproar". International Digital Times.
Fader, Carole (2012-09-01). "Fact Check: Too important to go to Vietnam? Romney never said it". The Florida Times-Union.
Garvin, Glenn (2013-10-27). "The war on Halloween". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (Note: this is an op-ed column)
Pryal, Katie Rose Guest (2012). "The Rhetoric of Sissy-Slogans: How Denigrating the Feminine Perpetuates the Terror Wars". The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. 15 (503).
O'Neil, Luke (2013-05-10). "No More Fake News". New Republic.
"Is Michele Bachmann Trying To Ban Halloween? Free Wood Post Article Confuses Social Media, Spawning Epic Internet Hoax". International Design Times. 2013-10-18. (Note: source seems to have ceased publishing in January 2014)
Erb, Kelly Phillips (2012-07-30). "Why I Don't Believe That Anonymous Hacked The IRS For Romney's Returns". Forbes. (Note: this is an opinion piece, disavowed by Forbes in a disclaimer)
"Satire Website Misrepresents Ted Cruz's Christian Faith". Christian Post. 2013-09-30.
Bigelow, William (2012-10-11). "Twitter: Liberals Buy Into Fiction That Romney Wants to Ban Tampons". Breitbart. Anarchangel (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't meet any section of the standard for WP:SPEEDYKEEP (certainly not "frivolous or vexatious" given the examples offered). Since two consecutive processes ended in "no consensus", normally in deletion procedures there's no prejudice against a rapid renomination of such an outcome, especially when neither process had much participation. As to the sources provided above, I've already discussed them in my Delete assertion above. Virtually everything is bare mention, and nothing presented could be considered significant coverage in reliable sources, IMHO. There's zero coverage of the organization, just examples of the satire it portrays. BusterD (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2014 (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.