Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folkdirect.com

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. Courcelles 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Not enough time was given to allow original creator/subsequent editors to add credible third-party sources. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folkdirect.com[edit]

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

Seems to be a new social networking website with limited reliable sources detailing it. The tone of the article is obviously promotional but that can be fixed through the course of normal editing. What cannot be fixed is the lack of sourcing. Protonk (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - unless solid sources are suddenly found. What we've got is a single-screen review on the HuffPost, some press releases and self-praise, a review on a glorified blog calling itself a magazine, and another review on a tech blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage so fails WP:GNG Mt king ^(edits) 07:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, not real references mostly primary references CapMan07008 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator and OrangeMike. Article was obviously created by a single purpose account to stimulate traffic, and although the tone could be fixed, the site is too new to have accumulated any in-depth reliable sources and fails criteria for websites and organisations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (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.