Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Wood Post (3rd nomination)
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
— User:BusterD, 03:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SPEEDYKEEP (Wikipedia:Speedy keep)