5 ms·
I don't mind Wikipedia's standards, but I wish they were more evenly applied. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of companies that are less notable than YC th
by jbyers 18y ago
I don't mind Wikipedia's standards, but I wish they were more evenly applied. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of companies that are less notable than YC that will never be deleted. Instead it is those that are somehow controversial and questionably notable that will be flagged for deletion.
- mikeryan 18y agoYC isn't "Not Notable" they're saying the article doesn't have the sufficient supporting evidence of its notability. (Which it doesn't) This is an easy fix.
- tptacek 18y agoIt is kind of annoying that an admin prodded a page that has mainstream print pubs on the first page of news.google.com results.
- silentbicycle 18y agoIt looks like said mainstream print pubs weren't referenced in the deleted version, though. (Several are now.) Wikipedia generally doesn't use http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ as a primary source.
- tptacek 18y agoNo, WP doesn't use Google as a primary source. Neither did I. The first page of Google results includes sources in mainstream print publications, many of which have YC as their actual subject. 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.
- silentbicycle 18y ago(Incidentally, sorry if that came across as more hostile than intended. Rereading it, it was more curt than I realized.)