Talk:Vidme

Company and site history
Per 's comments on my talk page, I've tried to very briefly explain when the company and site actually started. The company itself appears, from sources, to have launched in June 2009, which is when the site first went online with a simple placeholder. By October the page included mention of videos being offered to invitees only. Links for this can be found at archive.org, but vid.me is blacklisted, apparently, making linking here a hassle.

I don't know what, if anything, actually changed in 2010, but there are a couple of superficially reliable sources announcing a "launch". Could've been funding buzz. I don't particularly care if that details is included, but an article about a business should mention when the business started. If this is going to mention funding, it's at least in part about the business, so this should be included. Anything can happen, but it seems unlikely that the service and the business would each have enough coverage to split this into two articles, after all. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I just told Crash Underride, Greg Segal's Linkedin has the current incarnation of Vidme listed on it. There's no other source contradicting this but no reliable source saying it's the case. Based on personal experience I can safely say Vidme's current staff would likely deny any connection to him and likely would attempt to wipe any solid evidence of it from the internet anyway. All that can be said for certain is that Greg left the site in 2014 after being hired by Legendary Digital Studios, which is the same year the current incarnation of the site began. Mattwo7 (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With very little prior knowledge of this site and its history, I would judge from those sources that Vidd.me (with two ds) bought the "Vid.me" domain from another startup which went nowhere. The sources don't explicitly support that, but they suggest it. Archive has substantial archives for vidd.me going back to January 2014, while Vid.me only gets going in July 2014. If the company had the Vid.me domain, they would've used it, right? Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I can't find any verifiable sources saying they bought it and by Wikipedia's bass-ackwards standards (because apparently common sense isn't a verifiable source), there's no edit to be made without one. Mattwo7 (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't know if Linkdin would pass WP:RS. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  06:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Making the External link triggered blacklist as its a short URL!
I tried to make the link in info box and external link and after i pressed saved it came up with the error, i tried to see if it is local or or global but i have never had this situation like this before so i am very lost and asking for fellow Wikipedia help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkc19 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be  --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability
Zippcast failed to meet the notability guidelines. There's nothing in the guidelines that suggests Vidme is any different in this regard. Both are tiny startups that failed to do anything of objectively and legitimately notable value (please put those biases away, you can't prove they did). The only real difference is Zippcast wasn't as open about its investors (if they even did exist, Louis claimed as much for a long time before the shutdown where he claimed he was paying money out of his own pockets instead, both of these claims are super fishy yet seem to contradict each other) or anything regarding the legitimacy of Zippcast LLC's existence (which he never actually provided proof of) and that really doesn't change the fact that Vidme claimed to be a tiny understaffed startup with only a single physical location of operation and as far as I am aware, no evidence exists to prove otherwise. Doesn't matter if they legitimately registered their company, how much money they got or who invested. Basically, this is specifically a failure to meet the WP:PROMOTION guideline. I quote "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." Mattwo7 (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you might have a misconception about what Wikpedia means by "notable". Wikipedia relies on third parties to determine what is notable. These third parties must be verifiable and reliable sources. It needs to be more than just passing mentions and it has to be independent parties (not the organization's press releases and so on). According to the users at the deletion discussion for this article, they found it merited an article. Zippcast was deleted by a few different admins after individual users tagged it with a speedy deletion tag. By the way, "what about that article" is not a good argument. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Killiondude (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cybersquatting
See. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)