Notability Assessment
An honest read on whether an article is even possible.
Explore
Service
Wikipedia Services
Notability assessment, sourcing and compliant Wikipedia strategy.
Overview
Encyclopaedic, not promotional
A Wikipedia article is a consequence of coverage, not a substitute for it. We assess notability honestly, build the independent sourcing that supports it, and work openly within Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest rules.
How we work, and what we will not promise
The PR Code works within Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest and paid-contribution disclosure rules. Where we are engaged by a subject, that relationship is disclosed on-wiki, and edits are proposed for review rather than made directly to the article.
Whether a page is created, kept or changed is decided by independent Wikipedia editors against the community's notability and sourcing standards. No agency can guarantee a page, and we do not. What we can do is assess notability honestly before you spend anything, build a properly sourced draft, and tell you plainly when the sourcing is not there yet.
Notability check
Five questions, one honest answer
Answered in your browser. Nothing is sent to us unless you choose to get in touch.
Has your organisation been written about by publications you have no relationship with?
Can you point to several reliable, independent sources - not press releases or paid placements?
Has that coverage continued over time, rather than around a single announcement?
Are you willing to have any connection to the subject disclosed publicly?
Does the subject fall in a field Wikipedia covers - business, technology, culture, public life?
The sourcing looks promising
On your answers there may be enough independent coverage to support a page. The next step is a source audit - we read what exists and tell you whether it clears the bar.
Request a source auditPartly there
Some of the foundations are in place but the independent sourcing is probably thin. Usually the honest answer is earned media first, encyclopaedia second.
Start with media relationsNot yet - and that is worth knowing now
On these answers a page would very likely be declined or deleted. We would rather tell you that today than take a fee for it. Build the coverage first; the page follows.
Talk about building coverage
The criteria
What editors actually look for
Significant coverage
Sources must address the subject directly and in detail. A passing mention in a funding round-up is not significant coverage, however large the publication.
Reliable sources
Publications with editorial oversight and a record of fact-checking. Press-release syndication, contributor posts and sponsored content do not count, in any outlet.
Independence
The source must be independent of the subject. Interviews and company statements are useful for detail but do not establish notability on their own.
Sustained attention
Coverage spread over time carries far more weight than a burst around one announcement. This is the criterion most first attempts fail on.
Process
How an engagement runs
01
Source audit
We read everything written about the subject and grade it against the sourcing bar.
02
Notability assessment
A written verdict - proceed, build coverage first, or do not proceed.
03
Draft & citation build
An encyclopaedic draft, neutrally written, every claim cited.
04
Disclosed submission
Submitted through the proper channel with the paid relationship declared.
05
Monitoring
We watch the page for vandalism and factual drift, and propose corrections openly.
What is included
The capability set
Source Building
Independent coverage built before anything is drafted.
Explore
Article Monitoring
Watching for inaccuracies and vandalism after publication.
Explore
Start with an honest assessment
We will tell you whether the sourcing is there before you spend anything.
- Reply within 24 hours
- NDA on request
- Disclosed engagements only