Here's a good search for finding reliable sources:
Aren't there reliable blogs?
So yes, there are reliable blogs, but a post from Scoble and no mainstream media hits won't save an article from the deletionists.
(I have use the wikipedia random page as my homepage)
It's difficult to persuade hundreds of thousands of people outside said garage to write the actual content.
Two guys in a garage can create a wiki. Two guys in a garage with a million dollar PR budget can create a wiki and get it widely publicised. Two guys in a garage with a fifty million dollar budget can hire a bunch of writers to get the content kickstarted. But ultimately, the problem of persuading thousands of people to contribute to a brand new service is not a problem that anyone knows how to solve -- it either takes off or it doesn't.
2) why write new source if your goal is just to launch another wiki?
The right direction: Wikipedia with a constitutional bias against deletionism. Only false, illegal, or privacy-violating information should be deleted. Everything true should be welcomed.
I look forward to creating the article "List of random numbers generated by hugh's random number generator on September 18, 2008".
If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.
That's why people "go nuts." Whoever nominated this for deletion was either lazy and stupid or just looking for some drama.
This is an easy fix.
Wikipedia generally doesn't use http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ as a primary source.
If you have a concern about sourcing, there's the "refimprove" tag. An uncontested "prod" deletes the article. It is bad form to prod things you didn't even take the time to look up. If you want evidence to that affect, try slapping an AfD on the article and see how long it takes to speedy out.
Then, let me know you did, so when your RfA comes up, I can cite the AfD. RfA's have failed over silly stuff like this.
To put it in perspective, ignition partners, one of the largest north western venture capital funds, does not have a wikipedia page.
Take a look at the articles on VC firms on sand hill:
Only KPCB has an informative, encyclopedic entry - the rest I would argue don't even need to have articles.
Not to mention YC isn't a big VC firm, it's seed-only.
Read the comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=216723.
YC has a huge amount of media coverage. There is no way it is going to be deleted. The sole standard for an article remaining in Wikipedia is Notability, which is determined entirely by the presence of reliable independent sources.
Anybody can nominate an article for deletion at any time. You could nominate [[Bill Gates]] right now. It would appear, briefly, in the AfD debate log, until someone speedy-kept it. This will get speedied too. Move along, nothing to see here.
Because the standard of 'notability' is bogus when applied to something of the supposed scope of wikipedia. It's impossible to apply it with any reasonable consistency, and it always boils down to a few biased opinions, which is why the topic of notability deletions is so sensitive.
Not every company is notable, and certainly not companies at the two-guys-and-no-revenue stage (compare to your local dry cleaner, who is probably actually profitable).
This list would provide a better understanding of YC. Given that there is no SEO juice with links from Wikipedia and given that being on the list resulted in 2-10 vists per day for RescueTime (when we were on it), I see lots of benefit (in term of being accurate/complete), no harm, and no real significant benefit to the companies lists.
If the information is public I don't see any good reason why it must be a subset.
I would think that either you'd include a list that is as complete as possible, or not include it at all. Doing a partial list because you don't WANT it complete is just warped.
After some thought, I think it is. One can say YC is just another VC firm, so why should that be notable. But the unique way in which they are investing and developing companies is notable.
People who believe in the YC model and people who challenge alike all follow its progress closely as it is the flag-bearer of a new wave of investment.
This is why just about every major tech/business publication and many newspapers have written about YC.
The reality is that YC is now starting to get to the point where it is challenging some parts of the industry. This is why every Techcrunch article that mentions YC or a YC company is filled with the obligatory comments.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” –Gandhi
This is what I have done.