As the UK’s foremost professional Wikipedia editor, potential clients often ask me, how do I get-round Wikipedia’s notability requirements? Are there any loopholes for creating a company Wikipedia page?
I start by examining the evidence. Notability is a sourcing question; fame, a large following or a prominent job title does not settle it.
Internet fame is not a prerequisite for Wikipedia notability or creating a company Wikipedia page
Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia does not contain information on absolutely everything. Instead, editors compile subjects from sources which they collectively deem reliable. Sources can be newspapers (excluding celebrity gossip rags) and books (excluding self-published eBooks). (Broughton, 2008)
“In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes” – Andy Warhole
The Sixteenth Minute by Jeff Guinn and Douglas Perry.
The above quote appeared in the programme for Warhol’s 1968 exhibition at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm. Factually, it’s not a direct quote. Interestingly, the German art historian Benjamin H. D, Buchloh claimed that a breakdown in the way society measures fame might cause everyone to be famous briefly.
Intriguingly, the 2000s and 2010s saw an increase in fame but a decrease in the time spent in the spotlight. Internet sensations come and go within hours. Presently, YouTubers, Instagrammers, and viral hits may enjoy brief periods in the spotlight. For example, does anyone apart from BuzzFeed remember Egg Boy? Probably not.
Are Internet celebrities good subjects for company Wikipedia pages?
Internet sensations make appearances in mainstream media, particularly the tabloid press or breakfast TV. Unfortunately, such coverage rarely extends beyond the event.
You’ll find an Internet celebrity in the small market town of Whitchurch. Jackie Weaver works for the Cheshire Association of Local Councils as a referee for village council meetings. In February 2021, she became a Internet famous after dispursing a virtual riot in a Parish Council meeting.
Consequently, breakfast TV slots and YouTube reaction videos followed. Yet, despite bringing joy to the Internet and gaining coverage in multiple reliable sources. Being famous for a single event does not make someone notable. Alas, not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Wikipedia editors are the proper authority on this.
If Weaver were to sign a deal with a major publisher. Or maybe, compete in a major sporting event and win a Nobel Prize. In this instance they might qualify for a Wikipedia page. If like most Internet celebrities, that person is only notable for one event, Wikipedia may have a redirect page instead. Unfortunately, redirects send users to the page about the ssubject’s famous event. Namely, William Connolly redirects to a section of the Wikipedia entry for EggBoy’s nemesis and victim, Fraser Anning.
Being relevant in your field doesn’t necessarily make you Wikipedia notable
Having journalists quote an expert opinion from you. Or, having an employee comment on a trending topic is an excellent way of showing that you are relevant. Yet, bylines and mentions do not translate into encyclopaedic content. There’s nothing for Professional Wikipedia editors to dig into or grab hold of.
I have seen many copywriters, PR professionals or “professional Wikipedia agencies” attempt to create content based on bylines or mentions. Their recipe looks something like this;
Source A: One Mention in The Financial Times.
+
B: A By-line in The Sunday Times.
+
C: A Soundbite on BBC Evening News.
=
Statement X: “So-and-so is often called upon by the press to talk about such and such as a leading authority in their field.” – ProCreativeWriter97
The above statement too vague for an encyclopaedia. Also, it combines sources A, B and C to synthesise a piece of original research: statement X.
While synthesis is a staple of poetry, blogging or journalism, Wikipedians class synthesis as original research. Wikipedia does not allow editors to combine sources to reach a conclusion that the sources do not support. For my company New Page Creation first drafts, I use reliable, independent secondary coverage that contributes to the company’s notability case.
How do I prepare a defensible company Wikipedia article?
Moreover, Wikipedia editors can easily spot paid editors because they source content from bylines, mentions, and weak primary sources. Useless Wikipedia sources include podcast blurbs and Amazon buy links. (Nikesh Joshi, 2020)
Wikipedia sets the notability threshold a little higher for company pages
Unusually, Wikipedia is both a general encyclopaedia and a subject-specific encyclopaedia. Indeed, Wikipedia includes subjects that meet a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG).
Companies and organisations have their own notability guideline. It requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Other subject-specific guidelines can apply to particular groups, such as bands. I check the guideline that fits the proposed subject before assessing whether the sources support an article.
People have separate biographical and occupation-specific criteria. These are distinct assessment routes, not loopholes for a company page. An award or academic appointment must be examined against the actual applicable criterion and supported by evidence; a title alone is not an automatic pass.
I provide notability assessments to active WikiNative Studio subscribers, including eligible trial subscribers. Activate your Studio subscription or eligible trial before sending any brief or sources, then order a Preliminary Notability Assessment through your account. Agencies follow the same requirement.
A Preliminary Notability Assessment is available to WikiNative Studio subscribers for £49 or one included assessment credit. Order it through the shop in your platform account. See the current assessment prices and my Wikipedia page creation process.
Assess the company and its people separately
A company and its founder are separate subjects. My guide to company pages and personal pages explains how I distinguish the two. For companies, the current notability guideline requires substantive independent secondary coverage of the organisation itself.
Works cited
Broughton, J., 2008. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. First Edition ed. Sebastopol : Pogue Press .
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.
Nikesh Joshi, F. S. M. G., 2020. Detecting Undisclosed Paid Editing in Wikipedia. New York , Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 2899-2905.
