Rather than just complaining about Wikipedia, I've contested the deletion by removing the prod tag and added some sources from major publications. Please help add references from reliable sources (blogs dont count) or help copyedit the article.

Here's a good search for finding reliable sources: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22y+combinator%22+so...

Before everyone goes nuts, please consider the following: - Wikipedia allows for a civil debate on deletion matters. That's why the talk page is there. - Back up your arguments with logic and facts instead of floods of "YOU ARE WRONG" - that will get you nowhere. - Don't flame anyone for their opinions. - Most of all, let's defend the notability of Ycombinator. As a tech entrepreneur and professional blogger, I believe that A) YCombinator is very notable for not only who it invests in, but it's unique style and that B) People benefit from that information. So I will argue with logic, facts, and courtesy. I hope you all do the same as well.

Since we're refraining from flaming the wiki wackos on wikipedia let's do it here instead: Get a frigging grip on reality. That page is not that bad. It is useful information. Deleting should be reserved for obvious spam or completely irrelevent or wrong information. But that's fine. The wikieaucracy is gradually destroying wikipedia paving the way for something better to take its place.

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.

Ironic that they'll remove actual people and companies, yet they retain 100s of pages covering the Star Trek universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets

I also don't see what the big deal is. Having a Wikipedia article does not all of a sudden validate the Y Combinator idea, and having it deleted certainly does not invalidate the work they've done.

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Hill_Road

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.

This again?

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.

A Wikipedia competitor is one of the things pg would love to fund so....

why are there only 16 yc companies listed?

Does traffic play into this at all? Something tells me more people go to that page than to the long tail majority of wikipedia pages.

Y Combinator Alexa Rank is 205,428

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3...

It's the Internet! Why delete any articles, ever!? It's not like Wikipedia is running out of database space or something. It's dumb to have a subjective "notability" standard at all in a world of practically infinite scale.

It's things like this that make me lose faith in Wikipedia.

Well that was a rather quick resolution to the problem.

... and the article is still pretty bad! apparently these comment threads don't inspire much action ;-)

One answer to their knack for deleting valid content is to simply NEVER donate to them, encourage every single person you know to do the same, and let wikipedia know you are doing this and why.

This is what I have done.