Loading…
Wikipedia for tech companies
Funding rounds, analyst placements and tier-1 press are the currencies that buy notability on Wikipedia — not user reviews or PR wires. We audit what you have against the standard, build the source strategy, and draft the page the disclosed way.
The tech bar
Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) applies universally, but the sources that clear it look different for software companies than for other industries. Here is what reviewers actually look for in a tech company article.
The test is whether a journalist independently decided to write about your company. A TechCrunch article where a reporter investigated your growth story clears the bar. A TechCrunch article that is a lightly-edited version of your funding announcement does not. Reviewers check bylines, article depth and whether your press release text appears verbatim.
Gartner Magic Quadrant, Forrester Wave, IDC MarketScape and similar frameworks involve researchers who evaluated your product independently. A named placement is the kind of third-party assessment Wikipedia accepts as evidence of significance in a market. It is not the whole case, but it is the strongest single signal available to most B2B SaaS companies.
Series B rounds typically attract enough independent editorial attention — Reuters, Bloomberg, The Information, sector-specific trade press — to begin building a defensible sourcing case. Series A and seed rounds rarely do. This is not a hard rule, but it is the pattern that holds across hundreds of tech company reviews.
The general framework is on the Wikipedia for companies page. This page focuses on what is specific to software and SaaS.
Signal check
Every source below is common in the tech world. Here is how Wikipedia reviewers actually weigh them.
| Source type | What a reviewer sees | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Series B+ covered in tier-1 tech press | TechCrunch, The Verge, Wired, Ars Technica, MIT Technology Review, The Information — editorial stories, not wire pickups of your announcement. | Strong |
| Gartner Magic Quadrant / Forrester Wave placement | A named position in a recognised analyst framework: the analyst evaluated you independently, which is the definition of notability. | Strong |
| Reuters / Bloomberg / FT technology coverage | National or international business press covering your company as a tech story — acquisition rumours, market position, regulatory scrutiny. | Strong |
| Independent academic or standards-body reference | Citation in a peer-reviewed paper, IETF RFC, or industry standard document that names the product. | Strong |
| Product Hunt launch / G2 category leader badge | User-generated platforms. No editorial judgment was exercised — reviewers ignore these entirely. | Weak |
| Seed and Series A press releases | Syndicated from your PR wire. Even if picked up by 200 outlets, it is still one source — yours. | Weak |
| Founder Twitter threads / podcast appearances | Primary source material: the founder speaking. Wikipedia needs coverage about the company, not by it. | Weak |
| Crunchbase, AngelList, LinkedIn company page | Self-published profiles. Treated as company-controlled sources by every reviewer. | Weak |
Common pitfalls
These are the four patterns that most often cause AfC declines or deletion nominations for software and startup pages. Each is avoidable.
Pre-Series B startups almost never have the independent coverage depth Wikipedia requires. A failed Article for Creation (AfC) submission leaves a visible deletion log that can complicate future attempts and signals to reviewers that the company tried to jump the queue.
Tech companies generate enormous press release volume. A launch announcement reprinted by TechCrunch is still your press release — not independent coverage. Reviewers distinguish between a journalist who independently wrote about you and a news aggregator that ran your wire feed.
A Product Hunt review or an app-store feature covers a product, not the company behind it. Wikipedia's organisational notability test asks whether the company itself has been independently covered — product mentions alone do not clear that bar.
Tech teams sometimes have the technical confidence to edit Wikipedia themselves. Undisclosed editing about your own employer violates WP:COI and WP:PAID — and edit histories are permanently public. When discovered, pages get flagged or stripped, and the company's Wikipedia record takes a credibility hit that is hard to undo.
Pricing
The audit comes first. It costs €490, is credited toward page creation if you proceed, and gives you a sourced verdict within days.
€490
one-time
Scored go / not-yet verdict with a source inventory. Credited toward page creation if you proceed.
from €1,930
per page
Source strategy, drafting, disclosed publication and 90-day post-publication monitoring included.
Frequently asked questions
Other industries
Each industry clears Wikipedia's bar with different evidence. See the guide for yours.
The €490 notability audit returns a scored verdict and source inventory within days — credited toward page creation if you proceed. We say plainly when the answer is not yet.