Loading…
Wikipedia Notability Audit
Most deleted pages were doomed before the first edit: the sources never met Wikipedia's bar. We audit your sources against the exact tests editors apply at deletion, then tell you straight — yes, not yet, or here's the faster route.
What you get
A paid, independent assessment of your sources against Wikipedia's notability rules (WP:GNG / WP:NCORP / significant coverage). You get a source-by-source verdict, a go/no-go call, a deletion-risk rating and a roadmap — so you never pay to build a page that gets deleted.
Starting price
€490 / €750 / €1,900 — credited toward your project
Typical timeline
3-7 days
Best for
What we actually check
Notability isn't about how good your company is — it's about whether qualifying coverage already exists. We stress-test every candidate source the way the Wikipedia community does at a deletion discussion.
The source addresses you directly and in depth — enough to write from on its own. Passing mentions and name-drops don't count (WP:SIGCOV).
Not written by you, your team, vendors or sponsors. Bylines, disclosures and contributor status all matter.
Original reporting or analysis — not a rewritten press release, churnalism, or insider interview quotes (WP:ORGIND).
Real editorial oversight and fact-checking, cross-checked against Wikipedia's perennial-sources list — some outlets are deprecated or blacklisted.
Not filings, patents, award listings, your own site or socials. Those are primary and don't establish notability.
At least regional or national reach. Hyper-local-only coverage usually isn't enough for a company (WP:NCORP).
Disqualified automatically: press releases and routine announcements (funding, hires, product launches, awards), sponsored or contributor posts, interviews, directory listings and "best-of" lists. One wire story reprinted everywhere counts as one source — and coverage has to be sustained, not a single news spike.
Reliable sources, explained
Same outlet, sometimes even the same byline format — but only one of these counts toward notability. The difference is whether the journalist did independent work, or just rewrote what the company handed them.
What does NOT count
BusinessWire, PR Newswire, GlobeNewswire, or a company newsroom — self-published by definition.
Forbes BrandVoice, Entrepreneur Leadership Network, “Sponsored Content,” advertorials.
Q&A formats without independent journalism built around them.
Low-tier websites, listicles, affiliate articles with no editorial standard.
Even on a big-name domain, a rewritten release still gets rejected.
YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, LinkedIn — none are valid sources under WP:RS.
What good looks like
An 8-12 paragraph feature that qualifies as a reliable source. Note the depth, the independent voices, and the specifics that couldn't have come from a press release.
Over the past four years, Solarity Systems has evolved from a small Munich-based research project into one of Europe's fastest-growing AI-driven energy optimization companies. Founded by former Siemens engineer Lukas Eberhardt and data scientist Anna Gruber, the company focuses on predictive load-balancing and grid-efficiency tools used by utilities across Germany, the Netherlands, and the Nordic region. According to analysts from Euler Consulting, Solarity now manages data streams from more than 2.4 million smart meters, placing it among the top five independent grid-optimization providers in the European Union.
In a series of interviews with Forbes, Eberhardt explained that Solarity’s competitive advantage comes from "hyper-local modeling," which combines IoT sensor networks, weather satellite data, and machine-learning predictions in near real-time. "We built HeliosCore because the European grid is becoming too complex for traditional forecasting methods. Utilities need granular, dynamic systems, not monthly spreadsheets," he said.
Investors appear to agree. In 2024, Solarity closed a €42 million Series B funding round led by Sweden's Northwind Capital, with participation from E.ON Ventures and the European Innovation Council Fund. The round valued the company at €310 million, according to documents reviewed by Forbes. Northwind partner Sofia Lindholm said the fund conducted a four-month technical audit before investing.
Despite its momentum, Eberhardt stresses that Solarity faces complex regulatory and operational challenges, especially as EU policymakers push for more transparent AI models in critical infrastructure. With more than 140 employees across four offices and a projected annual revenue of €58 million for 2025, the company is positioning itself as a foundational player in Europe's transition toward smarter, more flexible energy networks.
The benchmark: one article of this depth plus 2-3 supporting articles from reputable media, and a Wikipedia page survives deletion discussions.
Per edition
English Wikipedia sets the bar highest. Other-language editions generally accept a lighter — but still independent — source base.
Before you pitch
Journalists write the article in the example above when a company hands them something to report on — not a press release to rewrite.
Self-assessment
Want to assess this yourself before you book the audit? Here's what we look at, in order. These are indicative — not guarantees. Wikipedia notability is a community judgement, not a checkbox. But pages that miss multiple items rarely survive AfC review.
3+ standalone articles in DR 70+ outlets (your subject is the article topic — not a passing mention).
Coverage spanning 18+ months minimum (sustained interest, not a single news cycle).
Zero press-release-sourced content as a notability claim (PR wires don't count under WP:RS).
Objective significance metric (€10M+ revenue, 100K+ users, 350+ employees for EN-Wikipedia, regulatory filings, or equivalent).
Regulatory or registry presence (SEC filings, business-register, public-procurement contracts).
Academic or industry-report citations (analyst coverage from Gartner / Forrester / IDC etc.).
Existing Wikipedia mentions (your subject is named in adjacent articles).
Reliable Sources
This is the rough sorting Wikipedia AfC reviewers apply. Not a published policy — a consensus that emerges from years of WP:RSP discussions.
Reuters, BBC, Bloomberg, FT, WSJ, NYT.
One Tier-1 source carries the weight of three Tier-3 sources in AfD discussions.
DW, Forbes editorial (staff-bylined, NOT contributor), TechCrunch features, national newspapers, Bloomberg Businessweek.
Substantial but not as decisive.
Regional papers, B2B trade press, niche professional publications.
Adds depth but rarely sole notability anchor.
Press releases (Business Wire, PR Newswire), corporate blogs, Medium, LinkedIn posts, sponsored content, Forbes Contributor, sponsored placements, "Contributor Network" outlets.
Active liability — citing these in a draft signals weak research and triggers reviewer skepticism.
A note on Forbes specifically
Wikipedia editor consensus (WP:RSP) treats Forbes Contributor as generally unreliable; only staff-bylined Forbes editorial counts. Same applies to HuffPost Contributor and similar "open contributor" platforms.
Statistics
Wikipedia deletion patterns we've tracked across our own + observed projects.
78%
Share of Wikipedia deletions where the cited rationale is insufficient/unreliable sources. (Source: AfD pattern analysis.)
95%
Fiverr-built Wikipedia articles deleted within 90 days in our 2024 observation window.
21 days
Median time from publication to deletion-nomination on under-sourced articles.
93%
Our verified pass rate on pages we accept after the source assessment.
If your self-audit comes back with multiple MUST-HAVE gaps, the Source Readiness Program (below) is the path before you commission a page-creation project.
Indicative signals
These are heuristics from experience, not official Wikipedia rules. They're the patterns we've watched pass or fail when assessed against Wikipedia's actual notability guidelines (WP:GNG / WP:NCORP). Use them to gauge roughly where you stand — the audit is what turns a hunch into a source-by-source verdict.
The three-part test
One strong dimension doesn't carry the others. The most common failure we see: paid articles misclassified as independent coverage, and brief mentions in roundups counted as in-depth pieces. A signal above is only a hint — what decides the case is whether the underlying sources clear all three at the same time.
Three audits
Every tier ends with the same honest verdict. Higher tiers review more sources and hand you more to act on — competitor and AI benchmarking, a draft outline, a media plan, and a strategy call.
€490
3-5 days
The verdict, in plain terms.
€750
5-7 days
Verdict plus a plan you can act on.
€1,900
1-2 weeks
Board-grade — for high-stakes or multi-market subjects.
The audit is paid and fully independent — but if you proceed to a page-creation project with us, your audit fee is credited toward that project. It's risk reduction, not a sunk cost.
What you walk away with
Not there yet?
A No isn't a dead end — it's a sequence. The audit tells you which rung you're on and what it takes to climb.
Step 1
Structured data with a much lower bar — and it already feeds Google's Knowledge Panel and AI answers. Usually the first win.
Step 2
Sometimes a more realistic edition — but notability rules still apply, and we'll say so honestly if it won't hold either.
Step 3
Earn the independent media you're missing before attempting the page. The audit defines exactly what's needed, and in what order.
Step 4
Only once the sources clearly clear the bar. There's no point paying to build a page that gets deleted in a week.
If the verdict is not yet
When the audit says the sources aren't there, this is the structured paid path to fix the source base — so a Wikipedia page becomes a question of when, not if. Built around the same six tests the audit uses.
Programme at a glance
A sequenced 3-6 month engagement that builds the real, qualifying coverage Wikipedia requires — anchored in editorial work that would clear independent, reliable and substantial all at once, not vanity clippings.
Honest framing
WikiBusines does not create notability artificially. The Source Readiness Program builds the real coverage Wikipedia requires — the page comes after, only if the evidence holds up.
What's missing relative to WP:GNG / WP:NCORP, prioritised — so effort lands where the bar is actually closest.
Each existing piece graded for independence, reliability and substance — using the same six tests the audit applies.
Angles, journalists and outlets that are realistically reachable for your subject — and that would meet Wikipedia's source bar, not just generate clippings.
A sequenced 3-6 month plan of stories to land — paced so coverage is sustained, not spray-and-pray PR around a single news spike.
Tier-1 / Tier-2 / trade publications ranked by realistic landability for your category — not a wish-list of mastheads you'll never crack.
A fresh notability verdict against the same 6 tests the audit uses — so you know, on evidence, whether you're now ready for a page.
Programme fee credited toward a Wikipedia page-creation project within 12 months of programme completion.
Why pay for a maybe-no
Anyone promising a "guaranteed Wikipedia page" is selling you a deletion. Wikipedia is an independent community with its own review — no agency controls it. A €490 audit that says no can save you a four-figure build that disappears in a week, plus the reputational cost of a public deletion discussion. When the answer is yes, you walk into the project knowing it will hold.
Open data
See the data: which industries pass Wikipedia notability most — and least — often
2,767 real assessments, 2018–2026. Crypto and Gambling at 96–98% low confidence; Finance and Media at 75–81% medium-or-high. Free CSV + JSON download.
Frequently asked questions
Where to next
Find out before you spend on a build. A few days, a clear verdict, and a roadmap either way — credited toward your project if you proceed.