Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VeryFirstTo

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VeryFirstTo

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

fails WP:CORP. sources provided merely confirm existence. nothing in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search turns up: Their own website; their Twitter account info; their very own pinterest.com info; them on YouTube; and their Facebook info. And they have created their own "VeryFirst To" award(s) - there seems to have been a bit of coverage online from the likes of: Frost Magazine and The Citizens of Fashion - but the first is an online snipet of their "award" show with links to Facebook/etc, and the second is their own .com site it seems. I also found ibtimes, but can't verify it's reliability - maybe someone from the UK can attest to it if possible. There was this quote; "is an online business, which enables individuals to be the first to know about, and have, newly launching luxury products and experiences." making me wonder over speculation. And also this quote; "The site is aimed at ûber consumers' who are distinguished by their desire to be the first to have the latest products and experiences, and their willingness to pay many times over the normal price." that seems an even more speculative and impractical business ideal. And then this; "Access to the site is through free or paid-for membership, the latter of which provides access to exclusive privileges." that sounds of pricing/promotion. I see a couple more reasons than that above...but we have some WP:SELFPUB (toss in all Twitter, YouTube, pinterest.com & "VeryFirstTo" awards, etc) & WP:SELFPROMOTE too. Big issues with sourcing...runs afoul of WP:SOURCES...seems like they created all the "buzz" themselves. Ren99 ^wha? 10:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2013 (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.