User talk:HighKing/Archives/2019/July

Deletion of Rumble (website) wiki page

Hi, I'm the owner of Rumble and I noticed our Wikipedia page was deleted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_(website) ). You said there is no recent news, but since its difficult to search for news under Rumble, I figured I provide it directly. Here are some major developments:

Rumble ranked 10th fastest growing technology company in Canada in 2018:Deloitte Link

Rumble ranked 75th fastest growing technology company in in United States in 2018:Adweek link

These are quite significant achievements, Rumble is faster growing than all these companies (most have Wiki's): Whistle Sports (107), iSpot.tv (171), AppLovin (205), Kabbage (209), ZipRecruiter (240), GumGum (268), Fuze (290), Cision (301), Malwarebytes (313), Zendesk (338), JW Player (340), Facebook (350), HubSpot (354), 360insights (368), Foursquare (373), Clio (377), Palo Alto Networks (401), Izea (404), Vox Media (415), Innovid (440), Square (466), InfoTrust (480) and Zoom Telephonics (489).Second Adweek Link

Rumble also surpassed over 1 million subscribers on YouTube, and has become a top 10 channel for Pets & Animals. Social Blade link

I'm not a Wikipedia expert and these examples might not qualify (although I'd think we do based other pages I see) but I know it can be tough finding news when our search term is "Rumble", since it gets lost in the shuffle.

Let me know what you think. Chris1983 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cpavlovski, there are strict guidelines on the references that are used to establish notability. The guidelines are contained in WP:NCORP and have been refined over many years. It can be a little daunting at first but they are fairly simply. Basically, "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Only references produced by reliable third parties containing independent content are considered. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

So .. many "news" reports are in fact initiated by the company - announcements, PR, sponsorships, inclusions in top 10s and lists, etc - none of that is (in general) considered. Anything based on a company announcement or based on an affiliated source is discounted.

Looking at the links you've produced, the Deloitte link is a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It is also an "award" that is not regarded as being a credible sign of notability as many many many companies are put on the list each and every year, many with no longevity. The Adweek links are also mere mentions-in-passing. The socialblade link the same. Inclusion on lists is deemed "Trivial coverage" - check out WP:NCORP.

Thanks for the comments. I used Deloitte because its an in-depth analysis/audit of Rumble, and is highly regarded in the business community for assigning credibility. In either case, I read the guidelines and I understand what you are looking for. Here are Articles and interviews on live TV by independent, unaffiliated 3rd parties that are reporting an analysis, interview, opinion and/or investigation by reputable reporters.

– Here is an interview on Live TV, BNN Bloomberg (Canada): Bloomberg

− Here is me live on the New York Stock Exchange, talking Rumble: Cheddar NYSE Interview

− Here is Verizon interview and case study on Rumble: Verizon Interview

− Here is a Financial Post article on Rumble and a Rumble creator. They even featured Rumble on the front page of their Business/Entrepreneur section of the newspaper in print. I can provide a picture if that helps? Financial Post

− CNBC article by a reporter on a Rumble creator: CNBC

There are a lot more I can provide, just let me know. I hope this helps. Chris1983 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cpavlovski, just to clarify. I did not delete your article although I !voted to Delete. Anyway - you say that you've read the guidelines but I still don't think you understand what types references that can be used to establish notability. It isn't only that the publisher should be a neutral third party. Take another read of WP:ORGIND and the parts on "independent content" and the examples of dependent content. As I said previously, independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

I have not been able to access the full Deloitte report - the link you provided is only a mention-in-passing where Rumble is on a list. The Bloomberg reference is an interview with an affiliated person - therefore fails the test of "independent content". Similarly your own interview on Cheddar. The Verizon interview fails for the same reason but additionally fails because it is from a blog which fails as a reliable source. The Financial Post article and the CNBC article are what I tend to refer to as churnalism - essentially it is marketing dressed up as news and it has zero independent content.

Notability is not about "coverage" in the news or getting interviewed by newspapers, etc. To simplify, one example is when a complete stranger writes about the company and provides entirely independent analysis/opinion/etc and voices it as their piece, avoiding phrases such as "according to the company" or by providing quotes or company soundbites. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw that answer coming, you need to defend your vote. Being on the front cover of the Financial Post Business section in Print by a respected journalist in Artificial Intelligence (with no bias) talking about Rumble's AI doesn't convince you, nothing will. You can't pay for that kind of coverage.

CNBC, same thing. She did a story on a creator about Syrian refugees, not Rumble, which also you can't pay for that.

I appreciate your responses, but I don't agree with your analysis.

You can delete this whenever you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpavlovski (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cpavlovski, just to clarify some more. First, I don't *have* to "defend" my !vote at all. The administrator who deleted the article is responsible for justifying the decision to delete the article. I'm just an editor, same as you, albeit with a better understanding of guidelines. I've tried to help you build a deeper understanding of the types of references that are required for establishing notability. Its up to you whether you chose to ignore what I've said or learn from it. I have read the references - even the Financial Post one and the CNBC one - and there is no independent content/statement/analysis on the company that isn't attributable to you or someone affiliated in some way with the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promoting your company and this is why we have strict policies and guidelines on how to determine the notability of companies. For example, you say that the journalist in the Financial Post article is "talking about Rumble's AI". What exactly does she say about the company that is her own opinion/analysis and not simply repeating sound-bites provided by you or your company? Similarly, answer the same question in relation to the CNBC article? When you've done that (and hopefully reach the same conclusion - "not a single thing") then you will have a much better understanding of the WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines and perhaps move closer to agreeing with the analysis of other editors, including me. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)