The number one reason Wikipedia pages get deleted is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. We see this constantly. Someone creates a page, it looks great, and within days a Wikipedia editor tags it for deletion because the subject has not been covered by enough independent, reliable sources. Understanding notability before you invest time or money into a Wikipedia page is essential.
Here is how notability actually works on Wikipedia, what the specific criteria are, and how to build toward meeting them if you are not there yet.
The general notability guideline
Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, known as GNG, is the baseline standard that applies to every topic. A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Let us break down what each of those words means in Wikipedia's context.
"Significant coverage" means the sources discuss the subject in depth. A news article that is primarily about your subject qualifies. A brief mention of your company in a list of companies that received funding probably does not. The coverage needs to be substantive enough that someone could use those sources to write a meaningful encyclopedia article.
"Reliable sources" means established publications with editorial oversight. Major newspapers, trade publications, peer-reviewed journals, and established online media outlets generally qualify. Your own website, press releases, social media, and self-published sources do not count. Neither do promotional pieces that your company paid for, even if they appear on otherwise reliable websites.
"Independent" means the source has no relationship with the subject. Coverage in your own company blog does not count. Neither does a story written by your PR firm and placed in a pay-for-play outlet. The sources need to be genuinely independent journalists or publications that chose to cover the subject on their own editorial judgment.
How many sources do you need?
There is no magic number, but as a practical matter, we find that three to five strong independent sources are the minimum to build a defensible article. More is always better. The sources should ideally come from different publications and cover different aspects of the subject. Five articles from the same local newspaper about the same event is weaker than five articles from different national publications covering different facets of a person's career or a company's work.
Subject-specific notability criteria
Beyond the GNG, Wikipedia has specific notability guidelines for different types of subjects. For people, Wikipedia looks at whether the person has achieved something notable in their field, whether they have received sustained coverage from multiple independent sources, and whether their contributions have had a lasting impact.
For companies, the bar is generally higher. Wikipedia wants to see that the company has been the subject of independent journalistic coverage. Press release pickups do not count. A company profiled in The Wall Street Journal, covered by industry trade publications, or written about extensively in connection with significant industry developments is much more likely to meet notability than a company that has only appeared in paid placements and press releases.
For academics and scientists, publication record and citation counts matter. Wikipedia also wants media coverage of their work beyond academic journals. A scientist whose research was covered by major news outlets has a stronger notability case than one with an extensive but uncovered publication history.
How to build notability
If you or your company does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, creating a page anyway and hoping for the best rarely works. The better approach is to build genuine notability over time through activities that result in real media coverage.
This means doing newsworthy things and making sure journalists know about them. Launching a genuinely innovative product. Publishing original research. Taking a public position on an industry issue. Speaking at major conferences. Winning recognized industry awards. All of these create opportunities for the kind of independent coverage that Wikipedia requires.
We help clients build notability through strategic press placement campaigns that generate real editorial coverage in legitimate publications. This work focuses on doing the things required to become genuinely notable, which benefits you far beyond just Wikipedia.
Common notability misconceptions
Being successful in business does not automatically make you notable by Wikipedia's standards. We have worked with CEOs of large companies who do not have enough independent media coverage to support a Wikipedia page. Revenue, employee count, and market share are not sufficient on their own. You need the independent coverage to back it up.
Having a large social media following also does not establish notability. Wikipedia editors are very clear about this. Follower counts on Instagram, Twitter, or YouTube are not considered reliable indicators of notability because they can be inflated and do not represent independent editorial judgment.
Finally, having been mentioned in news articles is different from being the subject of news articles. If your name appears in a list or is briefly referenced in a story about something else, that is not significant coverage. The articles need to be primarily about you or your company.
Next steps: If you meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, see our complete guide to getting a Wikipedia page created for the full process. If you are not quite there yet, our guide on getting press coverage shows how to build the independent media coverage you need to become notable.
If you are wondering whether you or your company meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, we can do an honest assessment. Our Wikipedia service starts with a notability evaluation before any work begins. There is no point creating a page that is going to be deleted. You may also find our guides on getting a Wikipedia page for your company and Wikipedia page costs helpful as you think about the full picture.
Related resources
- Wikipedia page creation, How to turn notability into a live Wikipedia article
- Wikipedia link insertion, Build authority without needing a full Wikipedia page
- Getting press coverage, Build the media coverage you need to establish notability
- Wikipedia pages for companies, Company-specific notability strategies
How Wikipedia's own policies shape notability decisions
Notability does not exist in isolation on Wikipedia. It intersects with two foundational policies that editors apply simultaneously during any deletion review. The first is verifiability. Every claim in an article must be traceable to a published, reliable source. Wikipedia's verifiability policy makes clear that the burden of proof rests with whoever adds content. It does not rest with editors who challenge it. The second is source quality. Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline disqualifies press releases, self-published blogs, and paid placements outright. A subject can have dozens of online mentions and still fail notability if none of those mentions come from editorially independent outlets.
For individuals, the stakes get more specific. Wikipedia's notability guideline for people distinguishes between someone who has received passing press and someone whose career or contributions have been the sustained focus of coverage. A founding partner at an architecture firm who was profiled in a major trade journal and quoted as a primary subject in two separate major newspaper pieces is in a meaningfully different position than someone named in a single contributor post. For companies, the organizations and companies guideline sets a comparable bar. Editors look specifically for coverage that is independent of the company's own communications team.
One procedural path that often gets overlooked is the Articles for Creation review process. This lets you submit a draft for editorial feedback before it ever goes live. This matters practically because a declined AfC submission is far less damaging than a publicly tagged and deleted article. We often see founders go through AfC twice, strengthen their sourcing between rounds, and end up with articles that survive speedy deletion reviews. The process is slow, sometimes taking six to ten weeks, but it is structurally safer for subjects whose notability is borderline.
What this looks like in practice
Companies with decades of regional work often have their Wikipedia pages tagged for deletion within days of going live. A business might have genuine community impact and complete major public projects, but if nearly all of its press coverage comes from its own news releases picked up verbatim by local wire services, it will struggle. One substantive local profile and a brief mention in a trade piece are rarely enough. The solution involves generating independent editorial coverage over several months. This might include a feature in a national trade publication and a sourced mention in an independent industry report. Once that coverage is established, a new article attempt has a much better chance of holding up under review.
Founders in specialized fields face a different problem. They might have real notability credentials, such as major research grants, highly cited peer-reviewed papers, and speaking slots at premier industry conferences. However, if almost none of that work has been covered by general-interest or trade media outside academic journals, a draft article will likely fail its initial review. The solution is targeted outreach to editorially independent outlets that regularly cover funded researchers or executives at that stage. Once those pieces publish, the notability case becomes straightforward.
By the numbers: what the data tells us about Wikipedia notability
Wikipedia's scale makes its editorial standards consequential in a way that is easy to underestimate. As of early 2024, the English-language Wikipedia contains roughly 6.7 million articles, but the deletion log records more than 9 million pages removed since the project launched in 2001. That means more pages have been deleted than currently exist. The single most cited reason across Articles for Deletion discussions is failure to meet the notability guideline for people or the parallel standard for organizations. Those are not edge cases. They are the dominant outcome for articles created without adequate sourcing in place.
The sourcing bar is strict by design. Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline explicitly excludes press releases, self-published content, and promotional placements, even when those placements appear on otherwise credible websites. A 2019 Pew Research study found that 81 percent of Americans feel they have little to no control over how information about them is collected. That appetite for authoritative, independently verified information is exactly why Wikipedia's editors enforce sourcing standards as rigorously as they do. Readers rely on the platform as a neutral reference point, and that trust depends on editorial discipline. Wikipedia's own verifiability policy puts it plainly. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability. A fact that cannot be traced to a reliable independent source will not survive editorial review, regardless of its accuracy.
For companies specifically, the organizations and companies notability guideline sets a particularly high bar. An organization must have received significant coverage in sources that are independent of the organization and that exercised genuine editorial judgment. Articles citing only trade wire pickups of press releases are routinely nominated for deletion shortly after creation. Wire-distributed press releases that get republished verbatim by dozens of outlets count as a single source under Wikipedia's framework. This surprises many clients who come to us with a stack of pickups and assume they have built a coverage record. We also see the conflict of interest guideline invoked frequently against pages created by PR professionals or by the subjects themselves. Even a well-sourced article can be flagged and scrutinized more aggressively if the editing history suggests a promotional intent. This is another reason the sourcing foundation must be airtight before a page is ever created.
The data here is clear. If you are considering a Wikipedia page for yourself or your company, the sourcing question is the entire ballgame. Three to five pieces of substantive, independent editorial coverage from distinct publications covering different aspects of your story is a realistic minimum. Getting there first, before any page creation attempt, is the only approach that consistently holds up over time.
How the process works for B2B companies
B2B companies often come to us after a Wikipedia page they paid a freelancer to create gets deleted. These articles are frequently sourced almost entirely from press release pickups on regional business wire services and profiles in trade association newsletters. Wikipedia editors classify these as non-independent. The deletion notices cite failure to meet the organizations notability guideline and flag the sourcing as primarily promotional. The fix requires a targeted press placement campaign to secure substantive coverage in distinct national outlets covering the specific industry, plus features in regional business journals that examine the company's role in broader trend stories. Once this coverage is published, the company's sourcing record can support a new article submission through the Articles for Creation process. The total timeline to build a stable Wikipedia presence often takes close to a year. The press coverage built during that period also contributes measurably to the company's organic search visibility for branded and category queries.