Can I create a Wikipedia page about my business?

I start by asking what people outside the business have written about it.

You can propose a page about your business when several reliable, independent sources have covered the company itself in depth. First check Wikipedia for the trading name and any former names. If you find an existing article, you may need a correction to that page. If you find coverage of the company only in its parent’s article, check the company notability criteria before planning a separate entry.

Take a trade magazine that profiles how your workshop grew into a manufacturer. Read past the founder’s quotes. What did the reporter investigate, and how much of the piece discusses the business itself? Keep the original link and the passages that answer those questions. Then look for other independent reporting. Six sites carrying your launch announcement still give you one company account.

Does the coverage support a company Wikipedia page?

For a company, I look for substantial coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Each source must meet the company-notability criteria itself. A brief mention in a respected newspaper does not become substantial coverage because another source is longer. Meeting the criteria establishes a presumption of notability, not a promise of publication. My preliminary assessment identifies a potential basis and any gaps. Research, drafting and revision then have to substantiate and demonstrate that basis.

What is a reliable, independent publication?

A recognisable newspaper name is a starting point for research, not a verdict on a source.

I read the article itself. Who wrote it? Who checked it? Is it reporting, opinion, advertising or a company announcement? The publisher’s name alone does not answer those questions. Wikipedia’s reliable-sources guideline requires the source to be appropriate for the statement it supports. Wikipedia has policies, guidelines and a process for reaching editorial consensus. Its editors apply those standards when reviewing sources and deciding what belongs in the encyclopaedia. A publisher’s decision to cover a company contributes evidence; it does not settle Wikipedia’s decision. I assess the material before recommending a drafting project.

What publications can’t I use as sources to create a company Wikipedia page?

Whether a publication has a Wikipedia article, or is described favourably there, is not a reliability test. I check the exact article, its author, editorial oversight and the claim it is being used to support. A source can be useful for one purpose and unsuitable for another. Some publications have specific restrictions. The Daily Mail was first deprecated in 2017 and should not be used to establish notability. That decision concerns its reliability; the existence or tone of its own Wikipedia article is not the test.

What Publications can I use as sources for a company Wikipedia page?

Instead of treating newspaper names as automatic approval, I check each proposed source for:

• Substantial discussion of the company itself.
• Independence from the subject, including who produced the material.
• Reliability for the claims under consideration.
• Secondary reporting or analysis, rather than company announcements.

Forbes illustrates why this matters. Its current source guidance distinguishes print coverage, publication dates and whether a writer was staff when the article appeared. A current byline alone may not establish that history. Wikipedia generally treats non-staff contributions as self-published material with insufficient reliability. The perennial sources list summarises community discussions; it is not a list of universally approved publishers. An unlisted publication is not automatically unreliable. I read the relevant discussion and examine the source itself.

What constitutes significant coverage?

A passing mention or routine announcement is not enough. The company need not be the source’s sole topic, but the part about it must provide depth. Several copies of one story are still one source.

What about product reviews?

A review does not need to describe a “game-changing” product. It needs appropriate depth, reliability and independence. Coverage solely of a product does not automatically establish the company’s notability; I examine how much it says about the company itself.

Can I use my company’s press release to establish notability?

In a word no. Press releases are primary sources. Editors may use primary sources to establish basic information but they do not support notability. To establish notability, someone unconnected with the company with a reputation for being an authoritative voice in their field such as an academic or a journalist needs to have taken the time to write about the company. I distinguish evidence that verifies a fact from evidence that establishes notability.

My company has 5 million followers on Instagram, does this make us notable?

No. Wikipedia favours qualitative over quantitative data. Unfortunately, five million, while being a significant number is still a number, and that number could have been reached by buying followers. Our competitors have a Wikipedia page, and they don’t have half as many sources as us. How come they can have a Wikipedia page but we can’t? I assess each proposed subject on its own evidence. Another company’s article may meet the criteria, may need improvement or may not have been reviewed recently. Its existence does not establish the case for yours. Wikipedia’s “Other stuff exists” discussion explains this argument; it is an essay, not a notability guideline.

Doesn’t Wikipedia’s reliance on published sources create a systemic bias?

Yes, it does. Wikipedia’s process for manufacturing knowledge is simple and very useful for documenting topics which appear in written, Eurocentric discourse. However, for businesses that operate in geographical or epistemic areas where there is no traditional publishing culture, for example, African tech-startups start-ups, Wikipedia’s policies are very limiting and have inadvertently created an encyclopaedia that overwhelmingly favours large, mainstream, multinational corporations and high-profile males of European origin. However, that’s another blog for another day. Do you think Wikipedia’s notability guidelines work? Leave your comments below.

Card required. Plans from £49/month after seven days, renewing monthly unless cancelled. Cancel before your trial ends to avoid the first subscription payment. One trial assessment per account. Draft Reviews and editorial work are charged separately. Private reports and drafts are reviewed inside Studio under the private-use terms.

If you are considering both a company entry and a biography, read my company-versus-personal page guide. The two subjects need separate assessments. My Wikipedia page creation service explains how I assess the evidence and develop a draft with you. Activate your Studio subscription or eligible trial before submitting a brief or source material, including if you represent an agency. Once it is active, order a Preliminary Notability Assessment through your account; see the current assessment prices. Before ordering, read my guide to preparing your source material in WikiNative Studio.