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 decker ^talk 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Wood Post[edit]

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

Deprodded for no reason by Fwpwiki (talk · contribs), 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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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:

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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.