Skip to content
WikiBusines

Wikipedia for investment funds · notability index 2026

Wikipedia page for an investment fund: VC, PE and asset managers

In finance, fintech and investment, our 2018–2026 estimates put 19% of topics at low confidence of notability, 77% at medium and 4% at high; for investment funds our expert estimate (11.2026, not a dataset) is “depends on sources”. A well-known portfolio, well-known investors or a well-known partner do not make a fund notable (WP:INHERITORG): what is needed is coverage of the fund itself.

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/Fund_N

Fund N

PE firm · company buyouts and exits

Fund N is a private investment firm founded in London in 2003. It buys and grows mid-sized companies and manages several funds.[1][2]

Type: PE firmHeadquarters: LondonAssets: with year and source

  • Financial Timeseditorial article on a company buyout✓counts
  • Bloombergpiece on an exit from a holding✓counts
  • The Wall Street Journalinvestigation into a dispute with investors✓counts
  • PR Newswirepress release on a fund close✗doesn't count
  • Forbes Contributorcolumn by a partner of the firm✗doesn't count
  • Regulator registermanager registration form◐fact only
independent, significant: 3 of 6passes: 3 significant independent

Fund N

VC fund · early-stage startup investments

Fund N is a venture fund founded in 2014. It invests in early-stage software startups.[1][2]

Type: venture fundStages: earlyInvestments: per press

  • Financial Timeseditorial article about the fund itself✓counts
  • Bloombergpiece on a change of the fund's partners✓counts
  • TechCrunchportfolio company round, fund mentioned in one line✗doesn't count
  • Crunchbase / PitchBookdatabase profile✗doesn't count
  • PR Newswirepress release on a fund close✗doesn't count
  • Regulator registermanager registration form◐fact only
independent, significant: 2 of 6borderline: 2 significant independent, more needed

Fund N

family office · one family's capital

Fund N is a family office that manages the capital of a single family. It invests in real estate and private companies.[1]

Type: family officeInvestors: the familyAssets: not disclosed

  • Reutersnews on a lawsuit in which the office is a party✓counts
  • Bloombergpiece on a portfolio company, office mentioned in passing✗doesn't count
  • Forbes Contributorcolumn on family wealth✗doesn't count
  • PR Newswirepress release on a new investment✗doesn't count
  • Crunchbasedatabase profile✗doesn't count
  • Regulator registerregistration form◐fact only
independent, significant: 1 of 6fails: 1 significant independent
autoindex 2026 · industry: 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 an investment fund needs a Wikipedia page: trust, search and AI answers

What a page gives you

LPs and co-investors

Checks before committing capital

Due diligence by limited partners (LPs) and co-investors starts with a search. A neutral, sourced article gives them a first description of the firm that the firm did not write itself.

Why it matters → founders

Vetting an investor before the term sheet

Before signing terms, a founder reads everything they can find about the investor. An article with history, strategy and open disputes gives a neutral starting point instead of hearsay.

Why it matters → search and AI

Knowledge panel and AI assistants

Wikipedia is one of the open sources Google builds its knowledge panel from, and ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity lean on it when answering “what is this fund”. A panel cannot be ordered, but a clear article gives it something to draw on.

Why it matters → clarity

The firm, its funds and its partners, kept apart

The article separates the management company, individual funds (Fund I, II, III) and partners: what is a legal entity, what is a strategy, what is a person. Less confusion with firms of the same name.

Why it matters →

We professionally create, edit and maintain Wikipedia pages for investment funds

Page lifecycleauto

Page creation

from €2,400English Wikipedia4–5 weeks

A neutral article about the firm: sources from the business press, an infobox with type, assets (with year and source) and key people, and a section on criticism. 90 days of monitoring and guarantee.

Page creation →

Editing and updates

€700–€1,9002–3 weeks

New funds, changes among partners, major deals and exits, updated assets under management. We remove what is outdated and add what is current, every statement with a source.

Page editing →

Ongoing support

from €720/year12 months of guarantee

Annual support: we watch for changes and vandalism, including evaluative wording and figures without a year, and respond with edits.

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

Notability of an investment fund: what counts and what does not

Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and in several of them (the WP:NCORP rule). Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITORG): a well-known portfolio, well-known LPs or a well-known partner do not by themselves make a fund notable. What counts is what independent editors have written about the fund itself.

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

Finance, fintech, investment · Wikipedia Notability Index 2026-v1 (WikiBusines, CC BY 4.0), estimates for 2018–2026. This is the row for the industry as a whole, not for funds separately: for funds we only have our expert estimate below.

auto

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

Media programpublications about the firm in independent outlets Wikidataa sourced entry on the firm AI visibilitywhat AI assistants say about you

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

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

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

02Sources

Which outlets count for investment funds: business, venture 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 for sources about investment firms, with the WikiBusines working tier and the community status. What counts is a specific piece about the fund itself, not the outlet's brand.

auto

Financial Times

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018

CountsEditorial pieces on the deals, exits, disputes and strategy of this specific firm.

Doesn't countSponsored sections and pieces that retell a press release.

Bloomberg

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial news and investigations about the firm and its funds.

Doesn't countProfiles compiled from press releases (separate Bloomberg profiles row in the media list).

Reuters

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018

CountsEditorial news on deals, court cases and regulatory decisions involving the fund.

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 devote a substantive passage to the fund.

Doesn't countA one-sentence mention of the fund in a market overview or a piece about a portfolio company.

The Economist

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024

CountsEditorial pieces on the industry and the firm; we tell news apart from analysis.

Doesn't countOpinion columns used as confirmation of facts.

CNBC

US

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsEditorial pieces on the firm's deals and leadership: we assess each one separately.

Doesn't countInterviews with a partner and broadcasts where the firm only talks about itself.

TechCrunch

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial pieces about the fund itself or its strategy with a news hook.

Doesn't countNews on portfolio companies' rounds where the fund is named among participants.

The Information

Global

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsOriginal investigations and reporting on firms and their partners.

Doesn't countRetellings of other outlets' stories.

VentureBeat

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsIndividual editorial pieces, each assessed separately.

Doesn't countSponsored content and retold releases.

Business Insider

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2021

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

Doesn't countCommercial sections and partner roundups.

Axios

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2020

CountsEditorial news on deals and funds from its own sources.

Doesn't countA brief mention of the fund in a roundup of the week's deals.

Forbes (staff writers)

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2026

CountsPieces by staff writers: the status has no consensus, so we check each one separately.

Doesn't countRankings and lists with paid or self-declared participation.

The New York Times

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024

CountsEditorial pieces and investigations on the firm and its deals.

Doesn't countOpinion columns and sponsored content.

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 on the firm in German or English.

Doesn't countPartner sections and retold releases.

Nikkei

Japan

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsEditorial pieces on the firm, its deals and its activity in Asian markets.

Doesn't countRetold press releases and mentions in roundups.

Ekonomichna Pravda

Ukraine

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsEditorial pieces on the firm: we assess each one separately.

Doesn't countRetold press releases and advertising publications.

Interfax-Ukraine

Ukraine

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsAgency news on deals and regulatory decisions: we assess each one.

Doesn't countThe firm's posted releases.

PR Newswire

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2019

CountsOnly as a primary source for the fact that the firm 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.

Crunchbase / PitchBook (databases)

Global

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsNothing: database profiles are not editorial pieces.

Doesn't countThe fund's notability, assets and investments taken from a profile page.

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 directory, not news about the firm.

Doesn't countNotability and facts about the fund.

Medium

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2022

CountsNothing: self-publishing.

Doesn't countPartners' columns and the firm's own texts.

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; specialist investment outlets such as Institutional Investor or Barron's are not in it yet, so they have no tier pills: we assess each piece separately.

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

auto
Financial TimesTier 1

Fund N buys a controlling stake in Company X and prepares an exit within a few years

editorial article · staff author byline

  1. ✓Independent of the fund
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a contributor's
  3. ✓Not sponsored
  4. ✓Significant volume about the fund, not a mention
  5. ✓Not a press release disguised as news

Counts as an independent sourcepassed 5 of 5

Outlet NTier 1

Company X raised a new round with participation from Fund N and other investors

“news” about a portfolio company · text matches its press release

  1. ✗Independent of the fund
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a contributor's
  3. ✓Not sponsored
  4. ✗Significant volume about the fund, not a mention
  5. ✗Not a press release disguised as news

Doesn't count The fund is only mentioned here, and the piece is about a portfolio company: this is not in-depth coverage of the fund (WP:CORPDEPTH), even in a Tier 1 outlet.passed 2 of 5

Media list: 891 outlets →Media coverage →

03Risks

Why investment fund pages get deleted: five typical reasons

A Wikipedia reviewer tags an article, and then it is either fixed or deleted. Below are five situations in fund articles: what is written “before” and what we write “after”. These are schematics, not copies of articles.

auto
{{Primary sources}}The article relies too heavily on primary sources

Fund N

Fund N is an investor in Company A, Company B, Company C, Company D and many other projects [1]

Fund N is an early-stage venture fund; Bloomberg wrote about its investment in Company A [1]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

A portfolio list from the fund's website is advertising and a primary source, not an article about the firm. Each investment on its own says nothing about the notability of the fund itself.

What we do

We keep only investments that the independent press wrote about in connection with the fund, and present them in prose, without a catalog.

{{Citation needed}}Statement without a source

Fund N

Fund N is one of the largest funds in the region with X bn in assets under management

Fund N is a PE firm; by its own reporting, as of 2024 its assets under management were X bn [2]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

Assets under management change every quarter, and “largest” is an opinion. A figure without a year and a source goes stale and reads as advertising.

What we do

We write “as of {year}” with a link. Comparisons with other funds appear only when an independent source supports them.

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

Fund N

Fund N is delivers the highest returns among peers: IRR above X and top quartile

Fund N is a PE firm that buys mid-sized companies; Bloomberg described its strategy [3]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

Returns, IRR and “top quartile” are marketing for investors, and Wikipedia sells nothing. Besides, such figures depend on a methodology chosen by the fund itself.

What we do

We never write such figures in an article, even with a source. The article describes the firm: history, strategy, disputes.

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

Fund N

Fund N is the fund of Partner A, a former bank director, book author and university lecturer

Fund N is a PE firm founded in 2009 by Partner A and Partner B [4]; key people are listed in the infobox

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

An article about a firm reads like a partner's biography, which means it is not about the fund. A person's achievements do not transfer to the firm.

What we do

The firm and the person are different entities: the partner stays as a line under “Key people”. We discuss a separate article about them only when there is coverage of the person themselves.

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

Fund N

Fund N is a well-known investor: its portfolio includes Company A, which every outlet writes about, and its LPs include well-known universities and pension funds

Fund N is a venture fund; the Financial Times devoted a separate piece to its strategy [5]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITORG): a well-known portfolio, well-known LPs or a well-known partner do not make a fund notable. If that is the only argument, the article goes to deletion.

What we do

In the audit we look for pieces about the fund itself. If there are none, we recommend the media program and Wikidata, not a submission on the off chance.

  • A well-known portfolio is not proofWithout pieces about the fund itself the article does not stand (WP:INHERITORG). We present the portfolio in prose and only where the press wrote about it in connection with the fund.
  • Assets and returnsAssets under management only with a year and a source. We never write returns, IRR or quartile positions.
  • Databases, columns, press releasesProfiles on PitchBook or Crunchbase, partners' columns and press releases on a fund close do not count as independent sources.

Guarantees →Restoring a deleted page →

04Article

Wikipedia article about an investment fund: structure, infobox, what it contains and what it does not

In the article every statement rests on a source, there is a section on criticism and disputes, and there are no evaluative words or return figures. The infobox gives facts: type, year founded, headquarters, assets (with year and source), key people and notable investments. The article describes the firm and offers nothing to investors.

auto
uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fund_N

Fund N

PE firm · management company

History

Fund N was founded in 2009 by two former bank executives [1]. At first the firm managed a single fund, and later it opened an office in New York [2].

  • 1 Financial Times · editorial article ✓ independent
  • 2 Regulator register · entry ◐ fact

Strategy and funds

The firm buys mid-sized companies and develops them [3]. The management company and the individual funds (Fund I, Fund II) are different legal entities; assets are given as of the reporting year [4].

  • 3 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent
  • 4 Manager's reporting · form ◐ primary

Notable investments

Only investments the press wrote about in connection with the fund are named, including the purchase of Company A [5]. The article does not give the full portfolio.

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

Criticism and disputes

A court heard a claim by the fund's investors over fees [6]; the press wrote about it [5]. The firm stated that the claim was unfounded.

  • 6 Court ruling · document ◐ fact
  • 5 Bloomberg · investigation ✓ independent

Notes

  1. 1 Financial Times · editorial article ✓ independent
  2. 2 Regulator register · entry ◐ fact
  3. 3 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent
  4. 4 Manager's reporting · form ◐ primary
  5. 5 Bloomberg · investigation ✓ independent
  6. 6 Court ruling · document ◐ fact

What the article leaves out

  • Slogans and evaluative words: “leading”, “most successful”, “investor No. 1”
  • Fund returns, IRR and quartile positions
  • The full portfolio list from the fund's website
  • Partner biographies instead of a description of the firm
  • Calls to invest and terms of entry into the fund

Page creation →Image checker →

05Process

From audit to page in 4–5 weeks: industry-specific steps

The five steps are the same for everyone, but for a fund each has its own particularity: how to tell pieces about the firm from pieces about the portfolio, and where the line between fact and advertising lies.

auto

Source audit

We check what pieces about the firm 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 the cost is credited to the project.

For funds: we look separately for pieces about the firm itself (deals, disputes, strategy) and set aside those about portfolio companies. We take registration forms as facts, not as notability.

✓Financial Times✓Bloomberg✗round news◐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.

For funds: we keep the management company, the individual funds and the partners apart; assets only with a year and a source; no returns or IRR.

✓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.

For funds: before submission we check that no claim rests only on portfolio companies or on a press release about a fund close.

◐draft→submitted for review

Review and edits

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

For funds: reviewers most often ask for independent sources about the firm itself, not the portfolio, and for evaluative wording and figures without a year to be removed.

?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 for an investment fund costs: list prices, no industry markups

where to start

Notability audit

from €4903–5 days

A written conclusion: whether there are enough independent pieces about the fund itself and what is missing. Credited to 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 investment funds: frequently asked questions

There is a large Wikipedia article about our portfolio company. Will that help the fund?

No, not on its own: notability is not inherited from the portfolio (WP:INHERITORG). An article about a portfolio company is useful as context and as a source for individual facts, but the fund needs pieces specifically about itself: a deal, a strategy, a dispute, an investigation. A news item on a round that mentions the fund in a single sentence gives no depth (WP:CORPDEPTH).

Do PitchBook, Crunchbase and league-table rankings count?

Not for notability. The community has decided not to use Crunchbase as a source, and database profiles include every fund without selection. League tables and rankings of the “most active investors” give facts and figures, but not independent coverage. What counts is editorial pieces by Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal about the firm itself. For outlet statuses see the media list.

Should we make a separate page for a partner or for the fund?

For the firm: a partner is a separate topic with notability of their own, which does not depend on the fund. If there is significant coverage of the partner personally (an interview with them is their own words, not coverage), a separate article is possible. If not, they remain a line in the key people section. The management company and the individual funds (Fund I, II, III) we usually describe in one article.

Can we state the fund's returns and IRR?

No, neither with a source nor without. These are figures that funds choose and present themselves, and Wikipedia sells nothing. The article describes the firm: history, strategy, funds, notable investments and disputes. Assets under management are possible if the year and the source are given.

Can we skip the audit?

You can, but we advise against it. The notability audit (from €490, 3–5 days) gives a written conclusion on whether there are enough pieces about the fund itself, and it is credited to the project if you go ahead. Without it there is a risk of 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 delivers publications about the firm in independent outlets, Wikidata a sourced entry, and AI visibility shows what assistants say about the fund. When there is enough material, we return to the audit. The index describes the industry as a whole, not your firm: what decides is the list of publications specifically about it.

Full FAQ →Notability audit →

Related pages

Wikipedia for fintech companiesparent page: finance and fintech Wikipedia for banksneighboring page: banks and neobanks Notability auditfrom €490, credited to the project Notability index13 industries, data 2018–2026 Media list891 outlets with tiers and statuses

Investment funds and Wikipedia: we will tell you honestly whether your firm passes

Send the firm's name and a few of the strongest publications about it. We will say whether the sources are enough, and if not, what to prepare.

  1. 1
    The firm and its fundsName, type (VC, PE, asset manager), year founded.
  2. 2
    Three strongest publicationsEditorial pieces about the firm itself only, no press releases or portfolio news.
  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