Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Wood Post (2nd 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Free Wood Post
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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?) 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 18 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, j⚛e deckertalk 05:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree with this statement: "Only sources are citations from Snopes, Forbes, and other sites that use it as a source." First off, I think that would be enough in itself to establish notability. Those are multiple independent sources, independent of the subject and of each other, which themselves are notable (with pretty huge readership), who are citing the Free Wood Post in a non-trivial way. But the cited articles that I read (Forbes, BTR, and four of the Snopes articles) go way beyond that. They are about the social impact of the respective Free Wood Post articles, or about the website itself and its social impact. They are the subjects of the sources' articles, not simply cited as sources themselves. That is akin to dismissing a critical review of a music album because the album was just cited as a source in the review. Multiple, independent reviews in RS by professional writers = notability according to the SNG for music. I believe this is notability established along those same lines. And contrary to what Argyle said in the previous AFD discussion, Forbes did not "disavow" the opinion piece. It states in a standard disclaimer, "Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own." That is different from disavowing the piece. I had never heard of Free Wood Post before seeing this AFD proposal, and I'm not biased as to its notability. I just strongly disagree with the rationale for deleting it, and I see strong evidence for notability in the sources. (I would prefer to see a RS for the number of views though.)Dcs002 (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment After looking at the original AFD discussion that was nominated 3 1/2 weeks ago and then closed with no consensus, it bothers me that it was re-nominated like this TBH. Where does that end? What has changed since that discussion was closed? Maybe it was improperly closed by an interested party, and maybe it was renominated by a party who was dissatisfied with the outcome of the previous discussion? I don't know either party, and I don't mean to impugn anyone's reputations or assume motives, but think about what that looks like, and the tone it sets at the outset of this discussion. Today is the first time I have participated in any AFD discussion. Is this normal? Do people just re-nominate articles if they didn't get a consensus for deletion the first time around? Dcs002 (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If a discussion closes as "no consensus" by an admin (who are usually the only people that close discussions), then renominating instantly afterward is no problem. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I sure hope I didn't come off as too personal in my comments. I am brand new to these discussions, and I was giving a gut reaction to what I saw. Dcs002 (talk) 05:15, 28 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, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 02:34, 5 August 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.