Skip to content
WikiBusines

Wikipedia for banks and neobanks · notability index 2026

A Wikipedia page for a bank or neobank: what passes and what does not

In the “finance, fintech, investment” industry, 19% of topics in our 2018–2026 assessments have low notability confidence, 77% medium and 4% high. For banks our expert assessment (11.2026, not a dataset) is “realistic”, for neobanks “depends on sources”. A Wikipedia page is a concise description of a bank built only on independent sources, so we first check whether they exist.

Notability audit · from €490 Create a page · from €2,400

// 19% low confidence in the industry — our scoring pipeline, not the market · prices from the 11.2026 price list · paid edits are disclosed in the name of WikiBusines

uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_N

Bank N

universal bank · corporate and retail clients

Bank N is a universal bank founded in 1994 and headquartered in Warsaw. It serves corporate and retail clients.[1][2]

Type: universal bankRegulator: nationalFounded: 1994

  • Financial Timeseditorial article on financial results✓counts
  • Reuterseditorial news report on a merger✓counts
  • Bloomberganalysis of a regulator’s decision on the bank✓counts
  • PR Newswirepress release about new products✗doesn't count
  • Bank annual reportprimary source✗doesn't count
  • Central bank registerlicense entry◐fact only
independent, significant: 3 of 6passes: 3 significant independent

Bank N

neobank · own banking license

Bank N is a neobank with its own banking license, operating since 2018. It provides accounts and cards to retail clients through a mobile app.[1][2]

Type: neobankRegulator: nationalFounded: 2018

  • Reuterseditorial news about the license✓counts
  • Financial Timesanalysis of the neobank’s earnings model✓counts
  • TechCrunchround announcement based on a press release✗doesn't count
  • PR Newswirepress release about a partnership✗doesn't count
  • Rating agencyreport paid for by the issuer◐fact only
  • Central bank registerlicense entry◐fact only
independent, significant: 2 of 6borderline: 2 significant independent, more needed

Bank N

app running on a partner bank’s license

Bank N is a mobile app for payments and savings, launched in 2021. Accounts are opened at a partner bank.[1]

Type: appLicense: partner bankFounded: 2021

  • CNBCmarket overview with a section on the app✓counts
  • The Wall Street Journalone-sentence mention in a market overview✗doesn't count
  • TechCrunchround announcement based on a press release✗doesn't count
  • PR Newswirepress release about the partner bank✗doesn't count
  • “Best Bank of the Year”paid nomination✗doesn't count
  • Central bank registerthe license belongs to the partner bank◐fact only
independent, significant: 1 of 6fails: 1 significant independent
autoindex 2026 · 19% low
19%of topics in the industry with low confidence
4–5weeks per page
90days of monitoring and guarantee
€2,400English Wikipedia page, from

Why a page

Why a bank or neobank needs a Wikipedia page: trust, search and AI answers

What a page gives you

trust

Counterparty checks

Correspondent banks, partners and corporate clients start vetting a bank with a search. A neutral, sourced article gives them a first description that the bank did not write itself.

Why it matters → names

Succession without confusion

Banks with the same name and former names after mergers confuse even specialists. The article records who succeeded whom, with sources and dates.

Why it matters → search and AI

Knowledge panel and AI assistants

Wikipedia is one of the open sources for the knowledge panel, and ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity often draw on it when answering “what is this bank”.

Why it matters → reputation

Negative coverage in context

Fines and sanctions are already in the press. A neutral article presents them with context and sources, so rumors and one-sided descriptions do not take its place.

Why it matters →

We professionally create, edit and maintain Wikipedia pages for banks and neobanks

Page lifecycleauto

Page creation

from €2,400English Wikipedia4–5 weeks

A neutral article about a bank or neobank: sources from the business press, the fact of the license from the regulator’s register, an infobox with type, regulator, owner and assets with the year. 90 days of monitoring and guarantee.

Page creation →

Editing and updates

€700–€1,9002–3 weeks

New licenses, mergers and renamings, changes of owners and management, fresh financial reporting. We remove what is outdated and add what is new, with a source.

Page editing →

Ongoing support

from €720/year12 months of guarantee

Annual support: we watch for changes and vandalism, including evaluative wording, outdated asset figures and attempts to remove the section on sanctions.

Annual support →

Paid edits are always disclosed on Wikipedia in the name of WikiBusines. Page protection is applied only by Wikipedia administrators.

Why Wikipedia matters →All services →

01Eligibility

Bank notability on Wikipedia: what counts and what does not

Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and in several of them (the WP:NCORP rule). A license, assets and number of customers do not confer notability on their own: what counts is what independent editors have written about the bank.

  • 19%low confidence
  • 77%medium
  • 4%high

Finance, fintech, investment · Wikipedia Notability Index 2026-v1 (WikiBusines, CC BY 4.0), assessments 2018–2026. The row covers the whole industry, not only banks; the bank assessment below is an expert one.

auto

Too early? It is not a dead end: sources can be prepared.

Media programpublications in independent outlets Wikidatabank entry with sources AI visibilitywhat AI assistants say about you

Types within the niche: where it is realistic and where almost never

WikiBusines expert assessment, 11.2026; it is not part of the dataset. Click a type: the profile in the window at the top of the page will switch.

Notability index: all 13 industries →Notability audit →Wikipedia for fintech companies →

02Sources

Which outlets count for banks: business, financial and general press

Wikipedia keeps no official list of “good” outlets, but the community has assigned statuses to hundreds of sources (WP:RSP). Below are the outlets most often used as sources for banks, with the WikiBusines working tier and the community status. What counts is the specific piece, not the outlet’s brand.

auto

Financial Times

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018

CountsEditorial pieces about the bank: financial results, mergers, sanctions, investigations.

Doesn't countSponsored sections, partner content and pieces that retell the bank’s press release.

Bloomberg

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial news and analysis about the bank and regulators’ decisions.

Doesn't countProfiles of banks and executives compiled from press releases (separate row below).

Reuters

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018

CountsEditorial news on deals, sanctions, regulators’ decisions and court cases involving the bank.

Doesn't countDistributed press releases and partner-zone content.

The Wall Street Journal

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial articles and investigations that give the bank a substantive passage.

Doesn't countA one-sentence mention in a sector overview.

The Economist

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024

CountsEditorial pieces about the banking system and specific banks; we distinguish news from analysis.

Doesn't countOpinion columns used as confirmation of facts.

Bloomberg profiles

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018

CountsOnly uncontested facts: name, founding date, executives.

Doesn't countNotability: the profile draws on the bank’s press releases.

The Banker

UK

no status in our dataset

CountsEditorial pieces about the bank: we assess each separately.

Doesn't countRanking roundups, “Bank of the Year” awards and sponsored sections.

American Banker

US

no status in our dataset

CountsEditorial news about the bank and regulators: we assess each piece.

Doesn't countRetold press releases and partner roundups.

Euromoney

UK

no status in our dataset

CountsEditorial pieces about the bank: we assess each separately.

Doesn't countThe outlet’s own awards and rankings as proof of notability.

CNBC

US

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsEditorial pieces about the bank, regulatory decisions and the market.

Doesn't countBrief mentions in market overviews and stock-market news.

Business Insider

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2021

CountsEditorial business news; for sections without community consensus we check piece by piece.

Doesn't countMaterial from commercial sections and partner roundups.

TechCrunch

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial pieces about neobanks with a news hook.

Doesn't countRound announcements based on a press release, and sponsored content.

BBC

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial pieces about the bank with its own sourcing.

Doesn't countA press release retold as news.

The Guardian

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial articles and investigations; opinion is read as opinion.

Doesn't countOpinion columns and blogs (separate Tier 3 row).

Handelsblatt

Germany

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsEditorial pieces about the bank in German or English.

Doesn't countPartner sections and retold releases.

Ukrainska Pravda

Ukraine

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsEditorial pieces about the bank with independent sources.

Doesn't countAdvertising and partner publications.

Ekonomichna Pravda

Ukraine

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsEditorial pieces about the bank: we assess each separately.

Doesn't countRetold press releases and advertising publications.

Interfax-Ukraine

Ukraine

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsAgency news on regulatory decisions and the bank’s deals: we assess each one.

Doesn't countPosted releases from the bank.

PR Newswire

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2019

CountsOnly as a primary source that the bank announced something.

Doesn't countNotability: there is no editorial review.

Crunchbase

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2019

CountsUsually nothing: the community decided not to use it as a source.

Doesn't countNotability and article facts: the database contains everyone.

Forbes Contributor

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2026

CountsOnly as the author's opinion, not as fact.

Doesn't countNotability: this is not the outlet's editorial content.

Investopedia

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2023

CountsNothing: it is a reference site, not news about the bank.

Doesn't countNotability and facts about the bank.

Statista

Germany

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2023

CountsOnly as an aggregator of figures that are better taken from the primary source.

Doesn't countNotability: it is a collection of statistics, not coverage of the bank.

Medium

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2022

CountsNothing: self-publishing.

Doesn't countArticles by employees and by the bank itself.

TierTier 1Tier 2Tier 3no consensusavoidnot in our dataset

WP:RSP statusgenerally reliableno consensusgenerally unreliabledeprecatedblacklistedmixed

Tiers are a WikiBusines working classification, not an official list. Statuses come from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, CC BY-SA 4.0, revision 11.2026. Tier and status names are taken from our dataset; The Banker, American Banker and Euromoney are not in it yet, so they have no tier pills.

How we read a piece: one publication, five checks, a verdict

auto
Financial TimesTier 1

Bank N completes merger and changes group structure

editorial article · staff author byline

  1. ✓Independent of the bank
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a contributor's
  3. ✓Not sponsored
  4. ✓Substantial coverage of the bank, not a mention
  5. ✓Not a press release disguised as news

Counts as an independent sourcepassed 5 of 5

Outlet NTier 1

Bank N launches a new card and expands its network

“news” · the text matches the bank’s press release

  1. ✗Independent of the bank
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a contributor's
  3. ✓Not sponsored
  4. ✗Substantial coverage of the bank, not a mention
  5. ✗Not a press release disguised as news

Doesn't count A retold press release is not independent coverage, even in a Tier 1 outlet.passed 2 of 5

Media list: 891 outlets →Media coverage →

03Risks

Why bank pages get deleted: five typical reasons

A Wikipedia reviewer puts a tag on an article, and then it is either fixed or deleted. Below are five situations typical for banks: what is written “before” and what we write “after”. These are schematics, not copies of articles.

auto
{{Notability}}The topic's notability is not shown by independent sources

Bank N

Bank N — a licensed and reliable bank, a member of the deposit guarantee system

Bank N — a universal bank; the regulator of country X issued it a license [1], as reported by the Financial Times [2]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

A license and membership in the guarantee fund show that the bank operates legally, but not that independent outlets have written about it. “Reliable” without a source reads as advertising.

What we do

The regulator's register is the primary source for the fact of the license. We show notability through editorial press coverage.

{{Advert}}The article is written like an advertisement

Bank N

Bank N — offers the most profitable deposits and loans with no hidden fees

Bank N — offers accounts, cards and loans to retail clients; the launch of a new product line was covered by the press [3]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

Wikipedia is not a price catalog. Rates, fees and “the best terms” without an independent source are typical advertising language, and current figures go out of date within months.

What we do

We do not list rates in the article. We mention products when independent press has written about them, and without evaluative words.

{{COI}}The article’s author may have a conflict of interest

Bank N

Regulation and incidents — the section on the regulator’s fine was removed from the article without an edit explanation

Regulation and incidents — the regulator fined the bank for shortcomings in customer due diligence [4]; the bank stated that it had resolved the findings [5]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

Removed fines and sanctions are visible in the edit history. A conflict of interest is noticed quickly, and the article is rolled back to the previous version with a tag.

What we do

We present negative coverage neutrally: as the sources described it, with the bank’s own words. Removing the section is not allowed, and we do not do it.

{{Citation needed}}A claim without a source

Bank N

Bank N — the successor of Bank Z, previously named “Bank Y”

Bank N — became the successor of Bank Z after a merger [6]; the renaming is described in a Reuters piece [7]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

Old names, renamings and succession without sources confuse the reader, and banks with the same name are easy to mix up. The reviewer demands confirmation of every link in the chain.

What we do

We check the names (old and new, Latin and Cyrillic) and confirm every link of the succession with a regulator’s decision or the press.

{{Citation needed}}A claim without a source or date

Bank N

Bank N — the largest bank in the region by assets

Bank N — assets per financial statements as of the end of year X [8]; its place in the ranking per an independent review [9]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

“Largest” without a date and a source means nothing: assets change, and rankings are compiled with different methodologies. This is the first thing a reviewer questions.

What we do

We give asset figures with the year and the source, and the place in a ranking only from an independent review, without the word “largest”.

  • “Licensed”, “reliable”Only with the regulator’s name, date and a link. The regulator’s register and the guarantee fund confirm the fact of the license, not notability.
  • Rates, fees, “largest”We do not list rates. Assets and ranking position only with the year and an independent source.
  • Fines and sanctionsWe never remove them: a conflict of interest is visible in the edit history. We present them neutrally, with the bank’s response.

Guarantees →Restoring a deleted page →

04Article

A bank article on Wikipedia: structure, infobox, what it contains and what it does not

In the article every claim rests on a source, there is a section on regulation and incidents, and there are no evaluative words. The infobox gives the bank’s facts: type, regulator, owner and assets with the year.

auto
uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_N

Bank N

universal bank · banking group N

History

Bank N was founded in 1994 as a regional bank [1]. After the merger with Bank Z it became the successor to its obligations and changed its name [2].

  • 1 Financial Times · editorial article ✓ independent
  • 2 Regulator’s decision · document ◐ fact

Operations

The bank serves corporate and retail clients [3]. Assets are given per financial statements as of the end of 2025 [4], without comparisons with other banks.

  • 3 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent
  • 4 Bank annual report · financial statements ◐ primary

Ownership and management

The majority owner is the parent company of the banking group [5]. The composition of management is given per the regulator’s register [2] and press material [3].

  • 5 Bloomberg · editorial piece ✓ independent
  • 3 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent

Regulation and incidents

The regulator fined the bank for shortcomings in customer due diligence [6]; the press reported on this [5]. The bank stated that it had resolved the findings.

  • 6 Regulator decision · document ◐ fact
  • 5 Bloomberg · editorial piece ✓ independent

Notes

  1. 1 Financial Times · editorial article ✓ independent
  2. 2 Regulator’s decision · document ◐ fact
  3. 3 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent
  4. 4 Bank annual report · financial statements ◐ primary
  5. 5 Bloomberg · editorial piece ✓ independent
  6. 6 Regulator decision · document ◐ fact

What the article leaves out

  • Slogans and evaluative words: “reliable”, “best”, “leader”
  • Rates, fees and descriptions of promotions
  • Rankings and “Bank of the Year” awards without an independent source
  • Asset figures without a year and source
  • Logos and photos without a license

Page creation →Image checker →

05Process

From audit to a bank page in 4–5 weeks: industry steps

The five steps are the same for everyone, but for banks each has its own particularity: names and succession, figures with a year, and a neutral section on regulation.

auto

Source audit

We check which materials about the bank already exist and sort them into those that count and those that do not. The notability audit takes 3–5 days, the result is a written conclusion, and its cost is credited toward the project.

In banks: we check the names (old and new, Latin and Cyrillic) and succession after mergers; we take the central bank’s register as the fact of the license, and look for notability in the press.

✓Financial Times✓Reuters✗press release◐register

Draft and disclosure

We write a neutral text with footnotes for every claim. Paid editing is always disclosed on Wikipedia in the name of WikiBusines.

In banks: figures (assets, capital) only with the year and source; no rates and no evaluative words; the section on fines and sanctions stays, neutral.

✓disclosed: WikiBusines◐draft

Submission

We submit the draft for review by the Wikipedia community when the source base can bear it. If it can't, we say so honestly before submission.

In banks: before submission we check that succession, the former name and the parent structure are confirmed by sources, not only by the bank’s website.

◐draft→submitted for review

Review and edits

A reviewer may place a tag or ask for independent sources. We respond with edits, not arguments.

In banks: the most frequent requests are to remove words about reliability and to confirm asset figures with a source and a year.

?independent sources needed✓answer with sources

90 days of monitoring

We watch the page for 90 days: edits, tags, deletion proposals. Page protection is applied only by Wikipedia administrators. If a published page could not be defended after 3 attempts within this window, we refund 80% of the project amount.

Next: annual support extends the guarantee for another 12 months.

90days
0306090

How it works →Annual support →

06Pricing

What a page costs for a bank or neobank: price-list prices, no industry markups

where to start

Notability audit

from €4903–5 days

A written conclusion: whether there are enough independent sources about the bank and what is missing. Credited toward the project.

Order an audit → English Wikipedia

Page on English Wikipedia

from €2,4004–5 weeks

Sources, a draft with disclosure, submission, edits after review, and 90 days of monitoring and guarantee.

Create a page → other languages

Other language editions

from €1,500Ukrainian, French, Spanish

The same process for other language editions. Full prices by language are in the calculator.

All prices →

Guarantee: 80% refund if a published page could not be defended after 3 attempts within the 90-day window. Guarantee terms →

Price calculator →

07FAQ

Wikipedia for banks and neobanks: frequently asked questions

Is a banking license enough for a Wikipedia page?

No, not by itself. An entry in the regulator’s or guarantee fund’s register confirms the fact of the license, and it is a primary source: it does not prove notability. What is needed is detailed editorial coverage in the business press about the bank itself: financial results, mergers, regulators’ decisions, investigations. A licensed bank without such coverage will not get a page.

Do ratings from Moody's, S&P, Fitch and lists like “Top 1000 banks” count?

As a source of facts and figures, yes; as proof of notability, no. A rating agency’s report is paid for by the issuer, and a position on a list shows a place, not that independent outlets have described the bank. These data can appear in the article with the year and the source, but the page itself is held up by editorial press pieces.

We are a neobank without our own license and work on a partner bank’s license. Can we have a page?

It is difficult. The license belongs to the partner, so the register adds nothing, and news about partnerships and funding rounds is usually written from a press release. A page is possible if there is editorial coverage of the app itself: an analysis of the model, an investigation, a regulatory history. At the audit we will tell you honestly whether it exists.

What should be done with the section on fines and sanctions?

Do not remove anything. The negative coverage is already in the press, and a neutral article presents it in context: what the regulator established, what the bank replied, how it ended. Deleting such a section is visible in the edit history, looks like a conflict of interest, and the article is usually rolled back to the previous version with a tag.

Can we skip the audit?

You can, but we don't recommend it. A notability audit (from €490, 3–5 days) gives a written conclusion on whether there are enough sources, and is credited toward the project if you go ahead. Without it you risk submitting a page that cannot be defended.

What if the index and the audit say “too early” or “low confidence”?

Then we prepare sources, not a page. The media program provides publications in independent outlets, Wikidata an entry with sources, and AI visibility shows what AI assistants say about the bank. When there is enough material, we return to the audit. The index describes the industry as a whole, not your bank: what decides is the list of its own publications.

Full FAQ →Notability audit →

Related pages

Wikipedia for fintech companiesthe page on the whole industry Wikipedia for investment fundsVC, PE and asset managers Notability auditfrom €490, credited toward the project Notability index13 industries, data 2018–2026 Media list891 outlets with tiers and statuses

Banks and Wikipedia: we will tell you honestly whether your bank passes

Send the bank’s name and a few of its strongest publications. We will tell you whether there are enough sources, and if not, what to prepare.

  1. 1
    Bank and licensesName, countries, regulator, former names.
  2. 2
    Three strongest publicationsEditorial pieces only, no press releases.
  3. 3
    GoalA page, Wikidata, or source preparation first.
Notability audit · from €490 Create a page

4–5 weeks per page · 90 days of monitoring and guarantee · paid edits disclosed in the name of WikiBusines