Guide · Updated August 2026
Wikipedia notability requirements
Wikipedia notability means significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The test turns on 3 words. Significant: the source is substantially about you, not a passing mention. Independent: you did not write, pitch, place, or pay for it. Reliable: a real outlet with editorial oversight. You need multiple such sources (no fixed number), and a company needs at least 1 that is regional or wider. Notability is not a reward for success. It is a measure of whether other people have already chosen to write about you.
The self-test, scored
Most guides explain the rule and leave you to guess where you stand. These are the questions a reviewer effectively works through, with weights. Score honestly: a reviewer will be harsher than you are, and the cost of being wrong is weeks of work and a public decline.
Award yourself the points only where the answer is an honest yes. Maximum 16.
Want the same assessment done by someone who does it daily, against WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, with the specific gap named? Run the free notability check. It costs nothing, and if the answer is no we say so instead of selling you a draft.
Does the coverage you have actually count?
This is where almost every rejected draft goes wrong. People arrive with a folder of links and assume volume equals notability. Reviewers do not count links, they weigh them, and a single genuine feature outweighs twenty newswire reprints. Find your sources below.
| Source you have | Verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| National newspaper or magazine feature about you | Counts | A staff journalist independently chose the subject and wrote at length: the clearest form of significant, independent coverage (WP:GNG). |
| Book or peer-reviewed work discussing the subject | Counts | Independent, editorially reviewed and durable. Any medium can count when the coverage is significant (WP:GNG). |
| Investigative or documentary coverage | Counts | Independent editorial judgement, substantial depth. Counts even when unflattering. |
| Trade publication analysis (not a reprint) | Partial | Judged like any outlet for people. For companies, WP:NCORP presumes trade publications are not enough on their own. |
| Local newspaper feature with real reporting | Partial | Counts as coverage, but for companies and organizations WP:NCORP also requires at least 1 regional, statewide, national or international source. |
| Interview or Q&A with the subject | Partial | Largely the subject talking about itself, so it is a primary source. Supports facts, does not establish notability. |
| Podcast or conference appearance | Partial | Same problem as an interview: you supplied the content. Useful for citing detail, not for the notability test. |
| Award from a genuinely selective, independent body | Partial | Depends on the award. For people, a well-known and significant award is an alternative route (WP:ANYBIO); for companies, minor awards do not count (WP:NCORP). Pay-to-enter awards do not help. |
| Press release, newswire pickup, or syndicated reprint | No | Not independent: the subject wrote it. Stories rewritten from releases (churnalism) do not show notability either (WP:GNG, WP:NCORP). |
| Sponsored post, advertorial, or paid placement | No | Purchased coverage is not independent, however prestigious the masthead (WP:NCORP). |
| Your own site, blog, or "as featured in" page | No | Self-published. Zero weight on notability. |
| LinkedIn, Crunchbase, IMDb, wiki-style directories | No | User-submitted listings. Reviewers treat them as unreliable regardless of how complete the profile is. |
| Funding round, hire, launch, or acquisition announcement | No | WP:NCORP explicitly discounts routine business news, even in a major outlet. |
| Follower counts, traffic, or revenue figures | No | Scale is not notability. A large audience with no independent coverage still fails the test. |
| Contributor post on a platform without editorial oversight | No | WP:NCORP names non-staff contributors at Forbes, Inc.com and TechCrunch: without meaningful editorial oversight the post is neither independent nor reliable. |
Add the coverage you actually have, one item at a time. Each one is judged the way an Articles for Creation reviewer would judge it, and the verdict updates as you go.
Counts: A staff journalist independently chose the subject and wrote at length: the clearest form of significant, independent coverage (WP:GNG).
Add your first source to see where you stand.
The pattern to notice: everything in the red rows is something you can buy or produce. Everything in the green rows is something someone else decided to make. That distinction is the notability rule, and it is why earned press coverage has to come before a Wikipedia article rather than after it.
The bar is different depending on what you are
Beyond the general guideline, Wikipedia has subject-specific standards. Some are genuinely easier to meet than the general bar, which matters: a musician or academic who would fail WP:GNG can sometimes qualify on a different route entirely.
WP:NCORPWP:BIO / WP:GNGWP:NMUSICWP:NACADEMICWP:NSPORTWP:NAUTHOR / WP:NARTISTPrimary sources: the general notability guideline and notability for organizations and companies.
The short version, both columns
- ✓In-depth coverage in a newspaper or magazine where a journalist chose to write about you
- ✓A book or scholarly work that discusses the subject in detail
- ✓Independent investigative journalism or documentary coverage
- ✓Multiple significant, independent, reliable secondary sources (the guideline sets no fixed number)
- ✓For companies and organizations: at least 1 source with regional, statewide, national or international reach
- ✕Press releases, sponsored articles, paid placements, or "churnalism" based on your own materials
- ✕Your own website, social media, LinkedIn, Crunchbase, or IMDb listing
- ✕Routine announcements: funding rounds, hires, product launches, acquisitions
- ✕Social-media follower counts or Google hit counts
- ✕For companies: local-only coverage with no wider reach
- ✕Being related to, or working with, someone who is already notable
- ✕Contributor posts without editorial oversight, such as non-staff Forbes or Inc.com contributors
- ✕Interviews and Q&As: they can verify facts but do not prove notability
What to do if you do not qualify yet
If you scored low, the problem is not your draft, your writer, or your choice of agency. It is that the independent coverage does not exist yet, and no editing fixes that.
The sequence that works is unglamorous: earn genuine independent coverage first, let it accumulate across several news cycles, then revisit the article. Paid placements and press releases, including ours, do not count toward notability; they help visibility, not a Wikipedia case.
And if the real goal is simply to look credible when someone searches your name, a Google Knowledge Panel is usually the faster, more achievable, and more controllable target. Wikipedia is neither fast nor controllable by design.
If you do qualify, here is the cost and the guarantee
Most of this market bills for consultancy: you pay for hours or a fixed engagement, and the fee stands whether or not an article ever goes live. We do the opposite. The notability assessment is free, we decline the work outright when a subject does not qualify, and the flat $4,000 is fully refundable: if we do not deliver the page published and live, you get 100% of your money back. We carry the outcome risk instead of you.
To be exact about what is and is not promised: we cannot guarantee Wikipedia's volunteers will approve any given article, because nobody can. What we guarantee is the money. Page published and live, or a full refund.