This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet culture Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Media Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Technology Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Internet Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Google Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

We are excited to tell you that VEVO will launch the evening of Tuesday, December 8! (Pavelow235 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The logo used in the article highlights the V and E in red, but the actual logo on Vevo.com only highlights the second V. Did they change it? Shouldn't Wikipedia change to match? There are logos here: Official Vevo Logos -- but I guess SVG is the most desirable format, no? Should we forgo that until someone can make an SVG of the revised logo? (Also, for future reference -- should I have put this on the picture talk page instead of here?) Tophtucker (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update the coloration when I get a chance. I think they changed it. Anyways, non-free images are never displayed anywhere other than its designated article, according to fair use guidelines. So you did the correct thing :) --ZooFari 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. --ZooFari 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vevo's slogan is "VEVO | Music Evolution Revolution!" At a guess, the name is a portmanteau of "video" and "evolution/revolution". This seems to make sense, but it was not added to the article because of the original research issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the Vevo artist channels are available on YouTube. This seems to be a promotion for the new service, which is not currently available worldwide (eg Rihanna's Vevo channel is on YouTube here). The Vevo channels have been picking up criticism on the technical front, with some users saying that they keep freezing and rebuffering.[1] This may be because the picture size is 850 x 480px, which requires a better quality Internet connection and computer than standard quality YouTube videos. Some of the videos have pre-roll adverts, which has also led to criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the videos having RTMPE was removed due to a lack of sourcing. Unlike YouTube videos, Vevo videos cannot be downloaded, but it is unclear why. The most likely reason is that they are streaming without buffering, which means that they do not cache to the local hard drive. When a Vevo video starts playing, the buffer bar (which is pink) is full immediately, unlike a YouTube video which takes a while for the buffer to fill up. This would also account for the freeze-prone performance that numerous people have reported with Vevo videos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the first month after its launch, Vevo generated a lot of complaints about slow video loading and picture freezing. Unfortunately, since most of this was in the tech forums (eg here it is unsuitable for the article. It looks like Vevo may have changed the system on the YouTube channels, because the videos are now buffering, which they were apparently not doing at the launch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this edit, it is true that some Vevo videos on YouTube are producing the message: "This video contains content from Vevo, who has decided to block it in your country." For example, I am in the UK and get this message when trying to access "Gwen Stefani - The Sweet Escape ft. Akon". However, most of the Vevo videos seem to work on YouTube, and there are original research issues here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this edit, This page reads like an advertisment. It couldn't be more positive and it is rather obvious who wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.82.245 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's not to like? There is not much information about Vevo at the moment, but the article does not read like an advertisement. The article also stresses that the www.vevo.com website is not available worldwide.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding 96.227.82.245's comment, here. This entire article seems to be nothing but praise for VEVO, with users like IanMacM removing all possible criticism. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.123.103 (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed criticism of VEVO from the article on many occasions, mainly because it was unsourced POV, or sourced to a blog or forum comment which would not meet WP:V. It would be fair to say that not everyone likes VEVO, but criticism needs to be reliably sourced. Find some reliably sourced criticism, and it can go in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No personal feelings of dislike towards vevo, but just a few minutes of browsing youtube videos makes it quite clear that public opinion is very, very anti-VEVO. The fact that this hasn't been sourced is well enough, but the criticism against VEVO needs to be documented somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.147.201 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it would be worthwhile to have some reliably sourced criticism of VEVO, which has not gone down a treat with all YouTube users. The problem is that unsourced or blog sourced comments have to be removed per WP:V.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Justin Bieber's criticism of VEVO taking down his post of his own song? http://www.beatweek.com/uncategorized/7649-justin-bieber-lashes-at-youtube-vevo-over-pray-video-copyright-fail/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhults7791 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is an example of the copyright controversies that have been a feature of VEVO. What happened here was that Justin Bieber uploaded the video of Pray to YouTube in November 2010, but it was blocked by Universal (UMG) on copyright grounds.[2] If a record company blocks the use of its own content, there is nothing that YouTube or VEVO can do about it, so it is not strictly speaking their fault. This example relates to VEVO, but in a somewhat indirect way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the example is somewhat less than ideal, it would be worth including in order to fix the neutrality issues surrounding this article, at least until a better example is offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhults7791 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider adding this, but felt that it was related to VEVO too indirectly. The issue was that UMG blocked the use of its own content, so it is more a criticism of UMG than VEVO.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been remarkably little about the launch of Vevo in the media, but the sources agree that the launch was on 8 December 2009 in the USA and Canada.[3][4] Japan may have been added to the article in good faith, but would require a reliable source, so it has been removed for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 January 2010 vevo is also available on Andorra, so might be convenient to update the countries in which vevo is allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.227.133 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see above. Vevo's publicity says that it is due to go worldwide in 2010, but availability in individual countries should have a reliable source. According to the sources, Vevo is available only in the US and Canada at the moment. I am in the UK and get the "sorry" message for www.vevo.com.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The design of both the company "Vivio" and "Vevo" are very similar. There is also a relationship between them and the design that goes into "Verizon". Red, Grey, and an emphasis on the letter "V". Either they are trying to replicate eachother's characteristics, or these are branches of the same company. Brewing monopoly if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.44.214 (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the Vivio logo and the similarity to the Verizon logo is only passing. Companies are usually careful about names and logos in case they set off claims of plagiarism. There is no sourcing at the moment to suggest a link between Verizon and Vevo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vivio= http://www.vivio.co.uk/

Vevo= http://www.vevo.com/

Verizon= http://www22.verizon.com/?CMP=KNC-CONSBRAND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.44.214 (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this article points out:

Draw a blue circle on the screen and you’ve just stolen the Blaupunkt logo. Draw a yellow line and you’re copying Visa. Draw a black swoosh and you’re ripping off Nike. The less intricacies involved in creating your masterpiece, the more likely it is that someone has already created it.

Even if there are similarities, it does not necessarily mean that the companies are linked in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I call that the "duh" or "easy anti-thesis" argument, which provides you the illusion of intellectual progress. The superior response is "I don't know, but it is interesting to note." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.44.214 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is wandering off into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. If you have any reliable sourcing that these companies are linked in some way, please provide it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vevo works very well in Russia. No "sorry" message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.243.254.62 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the problems facing the article at the moment. In the UK, I am still getting the "Sorry" message. The info about Russia may be correct, but it needs reliable sourcing. Vevo has not been picking up much media coverage, and the official launch publicity said that the site is available only in the US and Canada.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it contradictory stating that one of the reasons of Vevo existance is because high end publishers don't want to be hosted side-by-side with user-generated videos although this is considered a possibility in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.244.24 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The wording here was a bit confusing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vevo was launched in the US and Canada in December 2009, and is scheduled to go worldwide in 2010. However, when I try to access www.vevo.com in the UK, (with a UK IP address), I get the following message: [5]. If anyone has accessed Vevo in the UK, please explain how you did it, or provide a reliable source for the UK launch, which does not seem to have happened yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's not available yet in yout country.I think users now have access to Vevo in the UK.--Damirgraffiti (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vevo is NOT available currently in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.5.237 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, although the site is due for worldwide rollout in 2010, any additions need reliable sourcing. For a fact, I cannot access www.vevo.com in the UK at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Like YouTube, Vevo uses the Flash video format for its content. The player size is up to 850 x 480 pixels,"

I don't see how that's true with Lady Gaga's Telephone or Miley Cyrus's Can't be Tamed are offered in 1080. Psilocybin (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was true when Vevo was launched, but things have moved on. There are now some 720p and 1080p videos on Vevo. The usual sizes are 640x360 and 850x480. There are no videos smaller than this, which means that a modern computer and broadband connection are needed to enjoy the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the expand template. It has proved difficult to find reliable sources for much beyond what the article currently says. Vevo may have decided to delay/drop its plans for a worldwide launch, just as Hulu dropped its plans for a promised UK version in April 2010.[6] Is there anything that is reliably sourced and not too promotional that the article should include?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of views for videos in the VEVO channel on YouTube is currently over 18 Billion (short scale), which is over 14 times that of the runner up. Not sure if this information should be added to the article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of criticism of Vevo by different sources, on issues such as it pushing home user videos out of the spotlight (I saw a TON of this when "Bad Romance" hit more total views than "Charlie Bit My Finger") and its publishing of only censored versions of videos. It seems to have a lot of critics of its recent influence on YouTube. Many of the highest rated user comments on several videos are statements like "FUCK VEVO" as well. I've heard people claim that Vevo is likely inflating the view counts on its videos in one way or another too. I feel like someone should maybe compile a section covering this type of information.Josh (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate criticism sections are not usually good writing style, as they can become magnets for soapboxing and WP:COATRACK edits. Vevo has picked up a fair amount of criticism from regular YouTube users, but criticism needs to be reliably sourced rather than unsourced personal opinion. The charts on Vevo are a puzzle, because it seems odd that some of the videos on Vevo have managed to achieve more views in a few months than Charlie Bit My Finger or Evolution of Dance did in several years. However, it is hard to comment on the ratings system without proper sourcing. Vevo has also been criticized for showing censored versions of videos, but even in the days of YouTube, Avril Lavigne was blanked in Girlfriend when she sang "I'm the mother****ing princess". Some pop videos have NSFW content, and they tend to be toned down for Vevo. There are a lot of comments on Vevo videos criticizing the service, but they are not a reliable source that could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2009/12/how_vevo_makes_google_more_lik.html> Critique of Vevo appearing in the Harvard Business Review. 06:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree there should be a criticism section added because vevo has received a lot criticism from youtube users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Not talking about the heavy criticism (found on all of their videos on YouTube) means ignoring an important fact.--Athaba (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I see an incredible number of "*$#%@ VEVO" comments on YT - and came here wondering why everyone seems to hate it. They do censor some content apparently - but so do lots of other media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.128 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to add a criticism section twice but the User: ianmacm keeps removing them because he for claims they are "Unsourced" like ian mate if you don't believe vevo is criticized by youtube users check out the vevo videos on youtube there are always many criticizing comments on them everyday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is WP:SPS. I'm not disputing that there are numerous critical comments about Vevo posted on the videos, but since people can say whatever they like on message boards, they are not considered to be a reliable source. This is an ongoing problem, because it would be useful to have some criticism of Vevo in the article, but an anonymous message board posting would not be suitable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have many criticism for vevo and have to object to the censorship you yourself are creating here Ian... I have to ask you if you can offer proof of these complaints being solely based on 'message boards'

you sir are making post without reliable sourcing... Also sir no where in your articles or responses have you listed a link to define reliable sources...

Please provide those sources otherwise you are doing exactly what you are claiming others here are doing....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.144.232 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vevo coming soon page hints at a December 2010 launch for the vevo.com site in the UK, but there is a strong element of WP:CRYSTAL. Vevo seems to have become bogged down in licensing issues with the Big Four record companies. The wording of the "coming soon" notice is "VEVO is actively working with our international publishers to obtain the proper public performance licenses, which differ widely country-to-country. As it stands, it is our plan to expand globally with the launch of VEVO UK (United Kingdom) by December 2010." On the basis of this wording, a December 2010 launch for Vevo UK still looks speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like something needs to be editing in the intro paragraphs. It seems to be based on opinion? Thoughts please.--Redsox42311 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited for the claim that Vevo themselves censors the videos has been duplicated on several other websites, which leads me to believe that it's not reliable. This is exacerbated by the fact that the example shown in the article and its clones ("I'm on a Boat" by the Lonely Island) has an uncut version on the same channel. Virtually all of the censored videos I've seen on Vevo were created prior to YouTube taking off and were therefore probably never uncensored in the first place so that they could be shown on television. The fan-uploaded versions of these videos that do have the swearing were probably the result of them dubbing over the explicit version of the song before they posted it. 70.112.76.206 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites the censorship issue to this report. Removal of inappropriate material has been a persistent complaint about VEVO, but even in the days when the videos were on YouTube, some bad language was removed, for example Avril Lavigne singing "I'm the mother****ing princess" in Girlfriend. Lady Gaga's "Telephone" has an "Official Explicit Version" as well as the "clean" version. Some of the criticism of VEVO on this issue may be overdone, but it should be noted that all of the versions of videos on VEVO are officially approved by the record company, and are not fan made uploads as often happens on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the brands want to post their ads next to necessarily censored vids. I'd rather suppose the record labels don't want users to download the explicit versions for free (from the browser cache or using some service on the Net).

Well wait, you posted the same rough comment twice... VEVO is owned by the record companies, so their official approval is meaningless as it's a distinction without a difference. Your posts on this make you sound like a shill. 75.85.48.138 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not work for VEVO. If I have said the same thing twice, it is because people have asked about this more than once.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vevo sometimes names the vids incorrectly (deliberately?). Check out this so called "explicit" video for DMX's "Get It On The Floor": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvofs3n2ZmY It actually censors 40% of the words! And also pay attention to the highest rated comment.:-) 21:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

They censored "pistol" in Saliva's Always. They replaced it with "anger", which actually makes no sense in the context in which the word was used.

The censorship is so ridiculous as to be borderline idiotic. It merits a mention in the article. 68.48.209.127 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, VEVO does not censor videos, as it screens "official" videos approved by the record companies involved. This has been a common criticism of VEVO, but it needs to be reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I have stopped making edits or adding content on Wikipedia. Nowadays it seems like all articles are written by lawyers. No information is ever adequate, no matter how obvious it is, unless it is "properly sourced". I'm sure pretty soon you won't be able to write a statement like "You need air to breathe" without someone asking for a reliable source. Giuseppe86 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do work for them, perhaps in the interests of neutrality, you could take yourself off of "defending" this page. This page should include a criticism's section. Most of the comments in on Youtube about Vevo are overwhelmingly negative. Stating this fact would not be against neutral point of view. Do I need to quote an academic article to prove that the sky is blue?

The section could read:

"Vevo has been criticized by users of Youtube.com for poor video and sound quality as well as slow download times."

A sentence like this would state the fact, that it is criticized by many people, while at the same time it would remain neutral.

For example. I do not need to quote a reliable source to prove that WW2 happened or Julius Caesar was murdered. These are facts. Certain details about these events do need references.

However, if I was to quote a statistic like "99% of Youtube users say that they do not like Vevo." This would obviously require a reliable source.

I expect this post to be deleted. That is how PR firms quash descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.24.205 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't work for Vevo or have any links to it. The article has been semi-protected on several occasions because of unsourced commentary and soapboxing. Yes, there has been criticism of VEVO, including lack of availability of videos in certain countries, "official" versions of videos with swear words removed, and too many adverts. However, Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable, which is why unsourced or blog sourced criticism is removed. There has been a problem here, because there has not been a great deal of mainstream media coverage of VEVO. I'm not disputing that there are umpteen "VEVO sucks" comments on YouTube, but message board comments are not a reliable source. Another point to bear in mind is that criticism/controversy sections are not considered to be good Wikipedia writing style, as they lead to issues with WP:NPOV. Having a separate section for criticism/controversy in an article may lead to it being tagged with Template:Criticism section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Ian it fits wikipedia guidelines to make a non-specific statement about a widely accepted fact without a need for a source- as 207.6.24.205 so tactlessly put it

It is a well known fact that Vevo is evil.

Hence, there should be a section in the article titled "Vevo is evol" (misspelling for the rhyme).

While we have no reliable sources yet, there will be soon. I am currently working on an essay which will be published in the highly-acclaimed journal, American archivist.

So get started on it and you will have your citations up and ready to go soon enough!

Best Wishes, My IP address —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.143.129 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree, Vevo is pure evil! everyone should sabotage them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.119.43.30 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is sourcing per WP:V, because the recent news stories said that the launch was in the UK and none of them mentioned the Republic of Ireland. It is mentioned here, but a message board is not a reliable source. The edit here mentions a TwitPic image which I couldn't find, but this would be WP:OR. VEVO may be available in Ireland, but there needs to be a reliable source mentioning this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Official VEVO Twitter page gives Ireland, so this is OK. Did no reliable source in Ireland mention the launch? Anyway, compared to YouTube, the www.vevo.com site is still far from internationally available, as promised at the launch in December 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works just fine in Bulgaria. No error and copyright infrigment messages whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.162.215 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria may have access to Vevo, but a reliable source is needed to verify this. 86.41.37.234 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]