Talk:TechStyle Fashion Group/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Marcus Qwertyus 10:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

---

JustFabulous → JustFab – Company officially shortens name from JustFabulous to JustFab. 69.158.34.74 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism

Both these sources are shaky. The first citing "criticism" is to the Hacker News forum post discussing an otherwise praising article http://www.businessinsider.com/justfab-raises-76-million-to-create-the-hm-fashion-brand-of-the-web-2012-7. One person in an online forum can't really be used to cite "The company's business model and credit card practices have been criticized as deceptive."

If someone can produce more credible sources for either of these claims, I'm all for it, otherwise I'd nominate for deletion. Mreasons (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources have been posted, but the credibility of these sources are still shaky. One source is from a class action lawsuit posted at Scambook.com. This lawsuit was subsequently thrown out and thus does not prove that the company has "deceptive" business practices. The other references are all from public online forums. Please provide credible sources to back up your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.32.30 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

IP address 69.158.32.30 is probably affiliated with JustFab company, most likely JustFab's PR department. 69.158.32.30 has consistently deleted the "criticism" section of JustFab. Instead of deleting criticism, why don't you improve your business model and refund all the consumers who have fallen victims of JustFab.

In fact, several independent consumer complaints website including consumeraffairs.com, scambook.com, complaintslist.com etc, has reported thousands of consumers being deceived by JustFab's fraudulent business model. It's an undeniable FACT that in October 2011 a national class action lawsuit was filed against JustFab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streww (talk • contribs) 03:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been other editors besides myself who have told you to cite reputable sources. Forum posts and sites like Consumer Affairs and Scambook.com are not reputable sources. Any company can have a class action lawsuit filed against them. The lawsuit was thrown out of court, so that in itself should tell you something. 69.158.32.30 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

IP address 69.158.32.30, please honestly disclose whether you're affiliated with JustFab company, or any of JustFab's investing companies like Matrix Partners or Rho Ventures, or any other parties that have an interest in JustFab.

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with JustFab or its competitors or news.ycombinator.com, consumeraffairs.com, scambook.com, complaintslist.com. I don't have any interest in any of the companies listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streww (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with any parties that have an interest in JustFab. I have however been a satisfied member since they began shipping to Canada and thought it would make for a fun project to update their Wikipedia entry. I must assume you are an unsatisifed customer who did not read the terms and conditions before you signed up? Regardless, myself and other editors here do not feel that your sources are credible or reliable. Please see this article on reliable sources: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources 69.158.32.30 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is only one single accusation, it might be not credible or reliable. However, if the case of Justfab's questionable business model and credit card practice, there have been thousands of complains reported by consumers from several independent sources like news.ycombinator.com, consumeraffairs.com, scambook.com, complaintslist.com. Just take a look at the linked sources to see for yourself. If you still think the sources are not credible, feel free to bring in wikipedia mod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streww (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I still do not believe that these sites are credible sources. First of all, sites like Scambook, ComplaintsList and Consumer Affairs only post negative comments about companies and remove any positive reviews that are posted. I've also taken a look and read through a number of the complaints on the sites you sourced and there does not appear to be "thousands" of complaints as you have said. If you were to cite a legitimate company such as the BBB, then I think you'd be okay but these sources are not good enough. I will happily request the help from a 3rd party to determine if your references are valid 69.158.32.30 (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a comment from a 3rd party on the sources cited for the criticism section. Please see the comments above.

Gawker have called JustFab "The Biggest Scam in Online Fashion" http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-biggest-scam-in-online-fashion-1410935207/1411393805/@maxread The article that goes into pretty good detail on how JustFab trick their customers.