Talk:TechCrunch50

Last year, at TechCrunch40, 40 companies were introduced. Many had little or no funding. Since the event, 10% of those companies received funding of $10 MILLION to $27 MILLION. A FULL FORTY PERCENT WERE FUNDED at $3 MILLION OR MORE. 39 of the 40 are still in business. Significant? Heck, it may be driving the world's next phase of technology.

This is why TechCrunch50 is significant. Over the course of the next 40 days, I'm sure this Wikipedia page will be filled with facts of the companies introduced, and the companies that were rejected by TC50. OK, so this page is just a rough start, but it'll blossom over the next few weeks as the event hits.

Who cares about this?. I dont want to see anything about this stupid conference here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.34.245 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Barbara29684 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet Techcrunch40 doesn't merit an article. I could do this one as a redirect to TechCrunch, add any relavent info there but for now it sure does look like promotion for an event that hasn't happened yet. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend this be covered on the main TechCrunch page until enough content has been gathered to spin it off to its own page. This is the natural evolution of content related to another article. Once you've got more than a single paragraph of details, its more likely to survive loser scrutiny if it becomes an individual entry. Jschuur (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's notable - plenty of news coverage. However, the companies that were featured do not seem to be very advanced or notable.  There is not a whole lot of use for an uncited list of finalists and in fact the whole article cites no sources.  The best way, perhaps, is to have a single article for both events.  Presumably this is going to be a serial thing, so the techcruch conferences can have a single article to cover all the events.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge into TechCrunch?
The conference seems to be gaining notability in that its third edition/year is opening today. I was thinking though -- because it was previously named TechCrunch40, is now TechCrunch50, and the article is in need of updating -- that it would do better as a new and maybe slightly expanded section in TechCrunch. Thoughts? --bithaze (T.C) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've merged it. No prospect for expansion now and most of the article was merely a list of attendants. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)