Wikipedia Notability Audit
Find out if you qualify for Wikipedia — before you pay to build.
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
Wikipedia Notability Audit
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.
- Source-by-source assessment against the 6 tests editors apply at deletion
- Go / No-Go notability verdict + deletion (AfD) risk rating
- Roadmap: what coverage is missing and where to start
- Audit fee credited toward a page-creation project if you proceed
Starting price
€490 / €750 / €1,900 — credited toward your project
Typical timeline
3-7 days
Best for
- · Companies unsure if they qualify
- · Founders before a first page attempt
- · Anyone burned by a deleted draft
What we actually check
Six tests, applied to every source
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.
Significant coverage
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).
Independent author
Not written by you, your team, vendors or sponsors. Bylines, disclosures and contributor status all matter.
Independent content
Original reporting or analysis — not a rewritten press release, churnalism, or insider interview quotes (WP:ORGIND).
Reliable & edited
Real editorial oversight and fact-checking, cross-checked against Wikipedia's perennial-sources list — some outlets are deprecated or blacklisted.
Secondary, not primary
Not filings, patents, award listings, your own site or socials. Those are primary and don't establish notability.
Audience & reach
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
Original reporting vs churnalism
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.
- Journalist interviews company leadership
- Independent analysis, comparisons and context added
- Information not present in the press release
- Quotes from investors, analysts or customers
- Shows editorial investigation, not stenography
- Copies content directly from a press release
- No interviews
- No original information
- No context or analysis
- "Company X announced today…" and that’s it
What does NOT count
Six automatic disqualifiers
Press releases
BusinessWire, PR Newswire, GlobeNewswire, or a company newsroom — self-published by definition.
Sponsored or paid placements
Forbes BrandVoice, Entrepreneur Leadership Network, “Sponsored Content,” advertorials.
One-on-one PR interviews
Q&A formats without independent journalism built around them.
SEO blogs and aggregator sites
Low-tier websites, listicles, affiliate articles with no editorial standard.
Churnalism / rewritten releases
Even on a big-name domain, a rewritten release still gets rejected.
Social media
YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, LinkedIn — none are valid sources under WP:RS.
What good looks like
What a Wikipedia-eligible article 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.
How Solarity Systems Became a Key Player in the European AI Energy Market
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.
- Written by a staff journalist, not a contributor
- Original reporting — real interviews, not press-release copy
- Financial specifics — funding round, valuation, revenue
- Critical distance — analysts and investors quoted, not just the founder
The benchmark: one article of this depth plus 2-3 supporting articles from reputable media, and a Wikipedia page survives deletion discussions.
Per edition
Media requirements per Wikipedia edition
English Wikipedia sets the bar highest. Other-language editions generally accept a lighter — but still independent — source base.
English Wikipedia — strictest
- 3-5 independent, staff-written articles minimum
- One long-form feature comparable to the example above
- Zero paid or contributed content
Other editions — Spanish, French, Arabic, etc.
- 2-3 strong articles may be enough
- Still must be independent and non-promotional
Before you pitch
What to prepare to earn coverage
Journalists write the article in the example above when a company hands them something to report on — not a press release to rewrite.
- Clear milestones — funding rounds, expansions, major clients
- Data — growth metrics, product statistics, R&D achievements
- Leadership quotes and interview availability
- High-quality press kit, non-promotional
- Clear positioning against competitors
- Transparency — journalists drop companies that stonewall
Self-assessment
Seven signals we score before you book the audit
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
Four tiers of source quality — where each outlet sits in Wikipedia editor consensus
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
What gets pages deleted, and what doesn't
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.
- A fintech ($40M ARR, Series B) with 7 articles across Tier 1–2 outlets accumulated over 2 years. Source base supported the page comfortably.
- A 75-year-old manufacturer with 12 articles spanning decades; legacy coverage carried the notability.
- A Series A startup with TechCrunch funding mentions + PR Newswire only. Insufficient evergreen sources.
- A local restaurant with only regional coverage — geographic significance not equal to encyclopedic notability.
- A crypto project with only crypto-media sources — Wikipedia treats most crypto press as weak / promotional.
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
What usually does — and doesn't — clear the bar
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.
- 350+ employees for English Wikipedia (100+ for other-language editions)
- 20+ pieces of media coverage about the company
- At least 5 substantial, in-depth pieces in independent media
- International awards in its niche (a bonus, not required)
- Significant impact at the national level in its industry
- The largest in its region or country in its field
- A long operating history (a bonus — e.g. founded decades ago)
- A startup that raised $10M+ in investment ($2M for local-language editions)
- Produces physical products at large scale (a strong bonus)
- Exports products or services to other countries (a bonus)
- Members of parliament, ministers, mayors of major cities, heads of significant state institutions
- Professional athletes in top divisions; Olympic champions; athletes with international awards
- Artists with numerous international exhibitions and major awards
- Musicians or bands with 3+ released albums
- Actors, directors, producers with major roles in widely-released film or TV
- CEOs of corporations with 1,000+ employees
- 40+ pieces of media coverage about the person
- Recipients (or repeat nominees) of a well-known award that already has a Wikipedia page
- Notable figures in high-profile public events; recognised public figures
- Serial entrepreneurs and innovators; scientists, writers, creative professionals
- Authors who have published 5+ books
- Local politicians, deputy ministers, advisors, political consultants
- Vice-presidents and C-suite (CMO / CTO etc.) without independent coverage of them personally
- Early-career actors, artists or athletes
- PR professionals and small-business owners
- Local-level philanthropists without global awards or impact
- Newly-appointed CEOs of large companies without a substantial track record
- Crypto entrepreneurs and speakers (without strong independent coverage)
The three-part test
Real notability needs coverage that is independent and reliable and substantial — all three at once.
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
Pick the depth you need
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.
Standard
€490
3-5 days
The verdict, in plain terms.
- Up to ~15 candidate sources assessed, one by one
- Each source rated on the 6 notability tests, with the reason it passes or fails
- Go / No-Go verdict with a confidence rating
- Deletion (AfD) risk rating
- Recommended starting route (English / Simple English / Wikidata / build-coverage-first)
- Written report — one English edition
Premium
Most popular€750
5-7 days
Verdict plus a plan you can act on.
- Everything in Standard
- ~25-40 sources, including non-English and regional outlets
- Two language editions assessed
- Competitor benchmark — who's on Wikipedia and what sources back them
- Wikidata / Knowledge-Graph readiness plan
- Sequenced 90-day roadmap to close the gap
- Article skeleton (draft outline)
- 30-minute strategy call
Comprehensive
€1,900
1-2 weeks
Board-grade — for high-stakes or multi-market subjects.
- Everything in Premium
- Exhaustive sourcing, including offline and non-English
- Multi-edition strategy — which of 160+ editions you'd qualify for
- Competitor + SERP + AI-answer benchmark (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity)
- Article skeleton + Wikidata entity plan
- Media-gap plan with a target outlet & journalist shortlist
- Risk memo for legal / PR
- 60-minute strategy session + written Q&A
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
A document you can act on — or show the board
- A source-by-source assessment table — every source rated PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL with the reason.
- A clear Go / No-Go notability verdict with a confidence rating.
- Gap analysis: how many qualifying sources you have versus the ~3+ genuinely independent in-depth sources the bar needs.
- A deletion-risk rating — how likely a page is to survive a challenge.
- A roadmap to close the gap, sequenced so each step compounds.
- The recommended place to start — and which bundle or multi-language discounts would apply to your situation.
Not there yet?
Where to start when an article won't pass
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
Wikidata entry
Structured data with a much lower bar — and it already feeds Google's Knowledge Panel and AI answers. Usually the first win.
Step 2
Simple English / another edition
Sometimes a more realistic edition — but notability rules still apply, and we'll say so honestly if it won't hold either.
Step 3
Build coverage first
Earn the independent media you're missing before attempting the page. The audit defines exactly what's needed, and in what order.
Step 4
Full English Wikipedia
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
Not ready yet? The Source Readiness Program.
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.
- Pricing band
- €1,200 to €2,000
- 3-tier, by scope
- Timeline
- 3-6 months
- paced, not rushed
- Credit
- 100% credited
- toward a page-creation project within 12 months of programme completion
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.
Independent source-gap analysis
What's missing relative to WP:GNG / WP:NCORP, prioritised — so effort lands where the bar is actually closest.
Source-quality scoring
Each existing piece graded for independence, reliability and substance — using the same six tests the audit applies.
PR pitch framework
Angles, journalists and outlets that are realistically reachable for your subject — and that would meet Wikipedia's source bar, not just generate clippings.
Editorial calendar
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.
Outlet shortlist
Tier-1 / Tier-2 / trade publications ranked by realistic landability for your category — not a wish-list of mastheads you'll never crack.
Re-audit at programme end
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
We're paid to tell you the truth — including "not yet."
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
Wikipedia notability audit — what people ask
Wikipedia notability audit
How much does a Wikipedia notability audit cost?
What exactly does a notability audit assess?
Can I get an audit even if I already have a Wikipedia page?
What happens if the audit verdict is 'not yet'?
Do press releases and sponsored articles count toward notability?
Is the audit fee refunded if I don't proceed to page creation?
What is the difference between original reporting and churnalism?
We have Forbes Contributor and a BusinessWire release — is that enough?
What if we have no qualifying media coverage yet?
Where to next
Pages readers open after this one
Media Coverage program
Building the source base when the verdict is 'not yet'.
Can my company qualify?
The decision tree before you even book the audit.
Does Your Company Qualify for Wikipedia?
How to read your own media list against GNG and WP:NCORP standards.
What a Notability Consultant Does
A go/no-go/wait verdict before anyone drafts a page — 2026 pricing.
Company vs Founder vs Public Figure
The 3-Track Notability Model — different rules, different pages.
Wikipedia for Startups
When you qualify, when to wait, and what to build meanwhile.
Can a page hurt your business?
The exposure audit serious buyers run first.
Not sure you'd survive a deletion review?
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.