Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Wood Post


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Free Wood Post

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded for no reason by, who seems to have WP:OWN issues as they have most of the edits to the article. Prod reason was "Not notable. Only sources are Snopes debunking some of its articles. No reliable sourcing found, only blogs." Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. For those trying to decipher what the nominator means, "deprodded" apparently means removed a "proposal for deletion" (i.e. "prod") notice on an article. Agyle (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I could not find significant coverage of the subject itself in independent reliable sources. However, its articles have attracted reasonably significant coverage in reliable sources, which I think meets Notability (web)'s criterion that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." While some of the coverage I considered is in opinion pieces, which are not reliable sources for factual purposes, their publication in high-profile reliable sources still seems indicative of the subject's notability. Some coverage considered:
 * (Note: this is an op-ed column)
 * (Note: source seems to have ceased publishing in January 2014)
 * (Note: this is an opinion piece, disavowed by Forbes in a disclaimer)
 * There are also many cases where FW Post's works of fiction are carried as factual news, with the source unattributed, for example in this Ghana Nation story, although it's not clear that influencing world news media confers "notability" in the Wikipedia sense.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (Note: source seems to have ceased publishing in January 2014)
 * (Note: this is an opinion piece, disavowed by Forbes in a disclaimer)
 * There are also many cases where FW Post's works of fiction are carried as factual news, with the source unattributed, for example in this Ghana Nation story, although it's not clear that influencing world news media confers "notability" in the Wikipedia sense.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are also many cases where FW Post's works of fiction are carried as factual news, with the source unattributed, for example in this Ghana Nation story, although it's not clear that influencing world news media confers "notability" in the Wikipedia sense.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   05:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:15, 17 July 2014 (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.