Deletion of Free Wood Post (3rd nomination)

Comment: Doesn't meet any section of the standard for  (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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SPEEDYKEEP)

Comment: Subject fails . Coverage by cited sources is trivial and does not meet the standard in .  A Google failed to yield anything that really rings the notability bell. Article is clearly |PROMOTIONAL thus also failing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBSITE||WP:GNG||WP:PROMO||WP:NOT)

Comment: under  #2A as frivolous or vexatious nomination. Three nominations, all by the same nominator, all in two months
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:SPEEDY)