TechCrunch

TechCrunch

(not part of original row)
source type	foobar (not part of original row)
publisher	Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classification	No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply

Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, though their articles often have too little independent analysis to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH.

Prior discussions

Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.

• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 110#TechCrunch and Engadget
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 87#techcrunch.com
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 221#Are news articles written by TechCrunch staff considered RS?
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246#Is TechCrunch a reliable source?
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 486#TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and Business Insider

• Simple summary of prior discussions: TBD

Notes

References

Original table row for comparison

(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
TechCrunch WP:TECHCRUNCHWP:TECHCRUNCH 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2025	Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, though their articles often have too little independent analysis to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH.	1