Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Wood Post (5th nomination)

:{{la|Free Wood Post}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_Wood_Post_(5th_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Free Wood Post}})

Three consecutive AFD's closed as "no consensus". Will a gap of a few months finally lead to us reaching a consensus? This article hasn't changed one iota sine its last nomination: it's still horribly sourced, with the only "sources" being other websites that used it as a reference. I was unable to find any WP:RS about the actual site, just name-drops of it. Also, {{user|Fwpwiki}} has edited the article frequently, suggesting heavy WP:COI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - TenPoundHammer, this is now your fifth nomination of this page in less than six months; that's disruptively high, and it is indeed the fact that you keep nominating this that makes people vote to keep. Those previous AfDs provide me with some things that I think give this enough notability to at least have a basic start. For example, we have [http://www.idesigntimes.com/articles/8203/20131018/michele-bachmann-trying-ban-halloween-free-wood.htm this source], which seems reasonable to me, as does [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113163/daily-currant-free-wood-post-satire-no-more-fake-news this one]. The fact that the website is cited by Forbes very much conveys some notability to me; if they weren't notable at all, Forbes would've ignored them (and Forbes themselves described FWP as having the widest circulation of the hoax). It is also clear that more people have actively voted keep (this is defining all votes that were related to the topic at hand, without solely being SK2s with no further commentary) than delete across the four AfDs previously... you really need to drop the stick and move on. This is not a dangerously contentious BLP, after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:*{{ping|Lukeno94}} It was repeatedly closed as "no consensus", not "keep". All I freaking want is a consensus. There were plenty of dissenters to keeping it as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

::*That's not correct; last time it was closed as Speedy Keep. Note that one of the delete voters went on to !vote Speedy Keep in the next couple of AfDs - that should tell you something as well. I appreciate you want a consensus, but remember WP:NODEADLINE, and that there is absolutely no need to rush into deleting this. Five AfDs in less than six months is clearly disruptive, and is not going to help you, or your case. Come back in a year, but even then I'd probably advise against it, as there does appear to be some notability here at the very least, and the state of the article/any SPAs involved aren't strictly relevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep In the 5 previous discussions, there were only 2 policy-based Delete !votes, versus a clear majority of editors who thought that newspaper writers around the nation being amused or irritated by this site was good enough to qualify under GNG. In my view, the radio station interview qualifies as in-depth coverage, although barely. Per {{u|Lukeno94}} I think it's time to just accept that some people want to keep it and that that there is no WP:NODEADLINE for improving it. And I'm not sure about frequent editing = COI. That could just be a fan. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete inadequate coverage in reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

:*Which makes me think you've not looked at them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Some mentions on blogs and urban-legend sites do not meet RS/notablity.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

:*Forbes doesn't fall into either category. Nor do the two I mentioned in my !vote. (am not intending to badger anyone, even if it looks that way - just curious if anyone has looked carefully or not) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per Lukeno94's above accurate analysis and sources. Cavarrone 22:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Well, it certainly seems to fail the GNG for lack of coverage about Free Wood Post (e.g. the Forbes article doesn't even appear to mention its name). In contrast, there are a whole lot of sources about other satirical/fake news sites we have articles for. So it seems to rely on reliable sources picking up their stories, which has happened a few times but, in my view, not enough to merit a keep. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:21, 2 January 2015 (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.