Wikipedia Notability Guidelines: The Complete Breakdown (2026)

Wikipedia asks one question of every page: is this subject notable? If the answer is no, the page is deleted, no matter how accurate or well written it is. If the answer is yes, it stays. Every other rule is secondary.

We run notability assessments on every enquiry that comes to Reputn, and only 40 to 45 percent pass. The rest are told “not yet” or “never”, which is a cheaper answer than a deleted page. This guide is the assessment, written down: what the guideline says, how editors actually apply it, which sources count, how to check yourself in fifteen minutes, and what to do if you come up short.

What is the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline (GNG)?

The General Notability Guideline is the baseline test for every article on the site. It applies to people, companies, events, products, everything.

The rule is one sentence, from Wikipedia’s notability policy: a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Four words carry the whole sentence, and most people misread at least one.

Significant means the source treats you as its main subject. A 500-word staff-written profile in Forbes counts. One expert quote among five in a roundup does not. Neither does a slot in a “Top 50 Under 50” list.

Reliable means editorial oversight, fact-checking, a reputation for accuracy. Newspapers, established trade publications, peer-reviewed journals, books from real publishers.

Secondary means someone else wrote it. Your book, your TED bio and your company’s About page are primary sources, no matter how impressive.

Independent is the one that trips people up. If you paid for it, pitched it through your PR firm, or have a business relationship with the publication, editors will discount it. A press release republished on forty news sites is one press release.

Miss any one of the four and the source does not help you.

How many sources do you actually need?

Wikipedia does not give a number. The guideline says “sources”, plural, so the floor is two.

Our rule of thumb is three to five pieces of genuine coverage. Genuine means all four tests above, with you as the subject. Fewer than three and we will not file. Five strong ones and the page is safe in almost any deletion discussion. Beyond that, more sources add little; what matters is that the first three are unimpeachable.

Quality beats count every time. Three profiles in the New York Times, Reuters and Bloomberg outweigh twenty mentions in local blogs. The common mistake runs the other way: people stack dozens of press releases, sponsored articles and self-published pieces on the theory that volume compensates. It does not. Editors spot non-independent sources fast, and a wall of them makes the page look worse in the discussion that follows.

The notability self-assessment

This is the check we run on every enquiry. Ten questions, answered honestly.

1. Can you find at least three in-depth articles about you from major publications? Not articles you wrote, not wire pickups, not sponsored content. Editorial coverage where you or your work is the main subject.
2. Are those sources independent of you? No payment, no PR placement, no business relationship with the outlet.
3. Do the sources have their own Wikipedia pages? Not required, but a strong signal. The BBC carries more weight than a regional outlet nobody has heard of.
4. Is the coverage about you, not a passing mention of you? An expert quote in an article about your industry is a mention. A profile is coverage.
5. Were you the first or only person to do something specific? Wikipedia values firsts and onlys.
6. Have you won major awards from established, independent institutions? A Pulitzer or a MacArthur settles it. Awards from bodies that take nominations and sponsorship do not.
7. Are you widely cited in academic literature? For researchers this can carry a page without any media coverage.
8. Has your work been the subject of published books or documentaries? From real publishers and established platforms.
9. Do you hold, or have you held, a significant public position? Elected office, head of a major organisation, university president.
10. Has the coverage been sustained, not one news cycle? A viral week followed by silence is weaker than steady coverage over years.

Five or more yes: a strong case. Three or four: borderline, and borderline is where most of the risk sits (more on that below). Fewer than three: build first.

How we grade the result. Internally we sort every subject into one of three tiers. Strongly notable: five-plus independent profiles, no argument possible. Notable: three to five, clears the bar, needs a clean draft. Borderline: two or three, or sources that pass some tests and not others. Roughly 40 to 45 percent of the people who contact us land in one of those three tiers. The rest do not qualify yet, and we tell them so before anyone writes a word.

Why borderline is the dangerous tier

Strongly notable drafts clear Articles for Creation quickly. Borderline drafts are the ones that sit.

The reason is structural. AfC reviewers are, on average, less experienced than the editors who patrol new pages directly, and a reviewer who is unsure does not want to be the one who approved a page that later gets deleted. So a 50-50 draft is not declined; it is left in the queue. In our experience, once a draft has been waiting more than three months, the eventual answer is mostly decline. Time in the queue is itself a signal of a weak case.

There is a second structural problem for anyone paying for help. Paid-contribution disclosure is mandatory under Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, and we disclose on every draft. But a disclosed paid draft gets more scrutiny, and “paid, sourcing not strong enough” is an easy decline that no other editor will bother to question. The lesson is not to hide the disclosure, which is a ban when caught. The lesson is that a paid draft has to be sourced beyond argument before it is filed, because it will not get the benefit of the doubt.

Put those two together and the strategy writes itself: file strongly notable subjects, build borderline ones until they are not borderline, and never file a weak draft to “see what happens”. See how the AfC process works for the mechanics, including the difference between a decline and a rejection.

What are the subject-specific notability guidelines?

The GNG is the baseline. Wikipedia also keeps guidelines for particular kinds of subject. They do not replace the GNG; they offer other routes in when the general test fits badly.

People (WP:BIO)

Living people get extra scrutiny under the Biography of Living Persons policy: higher sourcing standards, and unsourced claims removed within minutes. Politicians who hold or have held office generally qualify. So do authors whose books were reviewed in major outlets, and academics with widely cited work.

Entrepreneurs and executives

This gets its own heading because it is where most of our “never” verdicts come from.

Wikipedia’s editor community assumes, by default, that an article about an entrepreneur is paid promotion. The assumption is often correct, which is why it exists, and it means a founder or CEO draft starts with a credibility deficit that a scientist or a novelist does not. Being a CEO, even of a large company, is not notability. The appointment announcement is routine coverage. Funding rounds are press releases with a journalist’s byline. What counts is independent coverage of you as a person: what you did, its effect, why a reporter chose to write about you without being asked.

Our position is blunt: if an entrepreneur is borderline rather than clearly notable, the attempt is not worth making. A deleted founder biography is logged forever and makes the next attempt twice as hard. The CEO and executive guide covers what does get through.

Companies (WP:CORP)

A company needs significant coverage in sources independent of it: the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, trade press with genuine editorial independence. Sponsored content, paid placements and press releases do not count under any circumstances. Revenue, headcount and customer count are not notability. Startups struggle most here because most of their press is funding announcements and founder interviews, which editors treat as primary material.

Musicians and artists (WP:MUSIC)

More flexible. Charting, a major-label deal, a notable award, or reviews in established music press can each establish notability. Independent artists can qualify on third-party coverage; a detailed review in Pitchfork or a major newspaper’s arts section moves the needle.

Academics (WP:ACADEMIC)

Several routes: widely cited work, a named chair at a major university, a prestigious research award, or contributions with impact outside academia. A long publication list or a high h-index is not enough on its own. In our experience academics are the easiest category to assess and among the most likely to pass, because the evidence is countable.

Athletes

Professional competition at national or international level, or in a major league, generally qualifies. College and semi-professional athletes need coverage beyond game recaps and statistics.

The sources that count, and the ones we throw out

This is where most attempts fail. People believe they have enough coverage; examined one by one, the sources do not meet the standard.

Strong sources are the ones you would expect: national newspapers, the major wire services and broadcasters, magazines with staff writers, peer-reviewed journals, books from recognised publishers. Regional papers with real newsrooms, trade publications with editorial standards and public broadcasters are useful but rarely enough on their own.

The list that matters more is what gets thrown out, because it is what clients bring us most often:

• Press releases, including every wire republication of the same release
• Forbes Councils and other contributor-network posts (staff-written Forbes is fine)
• Paid or sponsored articles and “As Seen In” placements
• “Top 40 Under 40” style lists that take nominations or sponsorship
• Podcast interviews (a primary source; a written article about the episode might count)
• Your own website, blog, newsletter and social accounts
• Reddit, Quora, Wikipedia itself

A Bloomberg profile of 500 words where you are the subject is one source. Being quoted in a five-expert roundup in the same publication is zero sources. Sourcing, not tone and not formatting, is the reason the large majority of drafts we see declined were declined.

How do editors actually evaluate notability?

A new article lands in a review queue. Experienced editors check whether it cites enough reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. If the sourcing looks thin, it is tagged. Pages that plainly lack notability can be speedy-deleted within minutes by any experienced editor, with no discussion.

Otherwise the next step is an Articles for Deletion discussion: any editor can nominate, the community debates for seven days, and a closing administrator decides. Hundreds of nominations go through this every week. The most common reason, by a distance, is “does not meet the general notability guideline.”

AfD is not a vote. The closer weighs the quality of the arguments, not the count. One well-sourced argument citing three strong independent references can outweigh five “delete” votes that never engage with the sourcing. Which is why the sources have to be right before the page exists. Once a page is at AfD, the sourcing is all that saves it.

Notability vs. verifiability

Related, and different. Notability decides whether a topic gets an article. Verifiability decides whether a given claim inside the article can be checked.

Your local pizza shop’s hours, menu and address are all verifiable. An article about that pizza shop still fails, because nobody independent has written about it in depth. The reverse also holds: a notable subject can carry an unverifiable claim; the article stays and the claim is removed or tagged.

Every fact about you being true does not qualify you for Wikipedia. Someone independent has to have found you worth covering.

How to build notability if you don’t qualify yet

Notability is built, not discovered. The material is independent editorial coverage, and if you do not have it today you can earn it. What you cannot do is shortcut it.

The order of operations matters. Most people create the page first, watch it get deleted for failing the GNG, and then fight uphill on every future attempt against a deletion log that never goes away. Build first, file once.

Editorial profiles in major publications are the gold standard. One staff-written profile in the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the FT or the New York Times outweighs ten pieces in smaller outlets. Getting one requires a story a journalist would chase without being asked: a contrarian position on an industry trend, a first-of-its-kind result, a personal story with real stakes. “Executive runs successful company” is not a story. Answer journalist queries on HARO, Qwoted and Connectively; build relationships with the beat reporters who cover your field.

Conference speaking compounds. The event publishes a speaker profile, journalists cover the session, and one strong talk at TED, SXSW, Web Summit or your industry’s marquee event can produce three or four independent sources over the following months. Paying for a slot at a “summit” that exists to sell sponsorships produces none.

A book with a real publisher matters less for the book than for what it triggers: reviews, launch interviews, profiles. Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan. Self-published carries almost no weight.

Awards and research fill the gaps. A Pulitzer, a MacArthur or an EY Entrepreneur of the Year award carries weight; regional “best of” lists add a little. For academic and technical fields, citations, grants from recognised funders and editorial positions at journals all count under the academic guideline.

What does not work: paid “As Seen In” placements, press release distribution, social media reach, and filing the page while you are still building. The first three produce nothing. The fourth produces a permanent record.

How long it takes

Twelve to twenty-four months, for most people starting with little independent coverage. Faster if you have accomplishments that simply have not been written about yet; slower in niche fields.

The first six months go on auditing what exists (search your name in Google News; three substantial unpaid articles means you are closer than you think), answering journalist queries, applying to speak, applying for awards. By months six to twelve the talks start producing coverage, one major profile is pitched, award announcements add sources, and reporters begin coming to you. By twelve to eighteen months most people following the plan have what they need.

Compressing this by buying coverage fails almost every time. A cluster of suspiciously similar articles appearing in the same few weeks is a red flag to editors, not an accelerant.

How to know when you’re ready

Four questions. Can you list at least three, ideally five, substantial articles from publications with independent editorial teams where you are the main subject? Do they come from at least three different outlets, none of which you paid or reached through a PR pitch? Do they cover different aspects of your career rather than one event? Has the coverage been sustained over at least a year?

Yes to all four: you are likely ready. Close: six to twelve more months. Far off: build coverage and stop thinking about Wikipedia for now.

If you care about the page, get the assessment done by someone who files drafts for a living before you do anything else. A Wikipedia consultant who tells you “not yet” is cheaper than a draft that fails, because the failed attempt is logged forever and makes the next one twice as hard. That assessment is free with us. Anyone who skips it and quotes anyway is selling you a page that will be deleted.

Common notability myths

“I have 200,000 followers.” Social metrics are not secondary sources. Accounts with millions of followers have no page because the editorial coverage does not exist.

“My company makes $50 million a year.” Revenue is not notability. Plenty of profitable companies have no Wikipedia presence because nobody outside the company has written about them in depth.

“I’ll just add more references.” Twenty press releases do not equal one Washington Post profile, and stacking weak sources makes the draft look worse.

“My page was deleted unfairly.” Editors do make mistakes. In most cases the sourcing really was insufficient. The productive response is more independent coverage and a later attempt, not an argument.

“I’ll pay someone to write it and nobody will notice.” Wikipedia detects undisclosed paid editing with tools, bots and editors assigned to the job. Caught means blocked, and a near-permanent barrier to future page creation. Disclosed paid editing is allowed; hidden paid editing is not. Our guide to hiring a Wikipedia agency or freelancer covers how to do it without poisoning your own page.

Does notability expire?

No. Notability is not temporary. A musician with significant coverage ten years ago and nothing since still meets the standard on the historical coverage.

One practical caveat: if the sources that established notability go offline, editors may challenge the article during a cleanup sweep. Archived copies on the Wayback Machine count, so keep a record of your coverage even after the page exists. One or two recent sources alongside the old ones also heads off questions about current relevance.

Can you appeal a deletion?

Yes, through Deletion Review. You can ask for one if the closing administrator erred, if new sources have appeared since, or if the discussion ignored evidence that was available.

DRV is not a second go at the same arguments. You need something new, almost always sources that were not in the original discussion. Reviews take several weeks. There is no mandatory waiting period before recreating a deleted page, and there is also no point returning with the same material; most successful recreations we see happen twelve to twenty-four months later, with new coverage in hand.

FAQ

How many sources do I need to be notable for Wikipedia?

Our rule is three to five pieces of genuine independent coverage where you are the subject. Three exceptional sources (a New York Times profile, say) can be enough; three weak ones never are.

What percentage of people who want a Wikipedia page actually qualify?

Of the enquiries we assess, 40 to 45 percent pass, split across strongly notable, notable and borderline. The rest are not there yet.

Why has my draft been sitting in the AfC queue for months?

Usually because it is borderline. Reviewers decline weak drafts quickly and approve strong ones quickly; the 50-50 cases wait, because an unsure reviewer would rather not decide. Past three months, the eventual answer is mostly decline.

Does disclosing paid editing make a decline more likely?

It makes scrutiny heavier, and “paid, not enough sourcing” is an easy decline that other editors rarely question. Disclosure is still mandatory. The answer is to file only when the sourcing leaves no room for that decline.

Can a small business have a Wikipedia page?

Yes, if it has significant coverage in reliable independent sources. A small company profiled in major publications qualifies; a large company with no press does not.

Are entrepreneurs held to a higher standard?

In practice, yes. Editors assume a founder biography is paid promotion until the sources prove otherwise, so a borderline entrepreneur draft is the worst bet on the site.

Do podcast appearances count?

Almost never. You are being interviewed, not independently covered. A written article about the episode in a reliable publication might count.

I’ve been quoted in major publications dozens of times. Isn’t that enough?

No. Fifty expert quotes across fifty articles are worth less than two articles where you are the subject.

Can a PR firm build my notability?

A good one can, by earning real editorial coverage. A firm that promises guaranteed placements, works with pay-to-play outlets, or bundles a Wikipedia page into its package is hurting your case.

How much does the whole process cost with professionals?

Building notability varies with your starting point. Once you qualify, professional page creation typically runs $2,000 to $5,000 for individuals and $5,000 to $20,000 for companies; see the cost guide. The expensive mistake is skipping the assessment and paying for a page that gets deleted.

What if I was notable in the past but not any more?

Past notability counts, as long as the sources can still be verified.

Next steps

Scored five or more? Compile the sources and either draft in the sandbox or hand it to a professional. Scored lower? Pick two of the building strategies above and give them six months. The page comes when the evidence supports it.

Reputn’s Wikipedia page creation service starts with a written notability audit, free, before any drafting. More than half the people who ask us are told to wait. The ones we file, we expect to survive.