Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumberwoods

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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberwoods

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No significant coverage from secondary sources. The article relies almost entirely on websites run by the subject of the article. There are multiple secondary sources cited, but it's for having links that point to Lumberwoods, not coverage of it. hinnk (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete endorse the deletion reason provided. Jahaza (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Save adding additional sources should not be an issue. I'll go ahead and start gathering these, thanks for your input. Gumberoo (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not meet the criteria for deletion as outline by Wikipedia. With regards to sources, attempts must first be made to find reliable sources and verify them. However, it is questionable that such steps were taken prior to nominating the article for deletion. A more-citations-needed notice was never placed on the article and, after some brief and initial research, there appears a non-negligible number of resources which, at least, cite Lumberwoods if not discuss it further. The landing page for Lumberwoods lists over twenty podcasts that cite it and several well-known and established websites. Most of the links to which do appear to check out. As well, a simple Google Book search shows at least four print sources citing Lumberwoods (lumberwoods.org or lumberwoods.com): Mythical Creatures of Maine: Fantastic Beasts from Legend by Christopher Packard (2021), American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore edited by Christopher R. Fee and Jeffrey B. Webb (2016), Treasury of Folklore: Woodlands and Forests by Dee Dee Chainey and Willow Winsham (2021) and Paul Bunyan in Michigan (2015) by Jon C. Stott. Moreover, while the article could certainly be improved by the addition of secondary sources most of the information presented is pretty straightforward and nothing that appears to be of a dubious or questionable nature. Likewise, I can find little reason to question whether Lumberwoods is a virtual museum or as to its contents. These both seem readily apparent. It seems more likely than not that secondary sources can verify this, yet the absence of these at present does not warrant the article's deletion. The main difficulty rather appears that a search on Lumberwoods yields many different kinds of result making the search for secondary sources more difficult yet not impossible. Time will be needed to narrow such a search. Overall, instead I feel it best, in this case, to add more-citations-needed template and go from there. Tripodero (talk) 23:46:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to your old user page, you are the director of Lumberwoods and decided not to disclose that here or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe. hinnk (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe. hinnk (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being a notable institution. References seems to be the same sources from Lenwood S. Sharpe which seems to sps sources, other sundry stuff not related to proving its notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No external reviews, no coverage. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable website. All citations are to third parties that have used the website as a "source" (makes me wonder about the editorial standards of those websites!), but nothing written about the website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per scope_creep. There does not appear to be any coverage about the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2022 (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.