The Notability Objective of Wikipedia Page Creation
I build a new Wikipedia article around one central objective: presenting the strongest possible case for the subject’s notability. That objective determines which sources I use, what I write and what I remove. It runs through the whole project, alongside compliance with Wikipedia’s core content policies. When the commissioned work is ready, I publish the finished article directly to the English Wikipedia’s mainspace myself.
I use “the notability objective” to describe how I approach the work. The published coverage must already provide a basis for the article. My job is to research that coverage, understand what it establishes and make the case clear in the draft. Writing cannot manufacture a subject’s notability.
Wikipedia notability requirements: the objective that guides the draft
I start with what reliable, independent sources have written about the subject. I examine the depth of that coverage, what it discusses and whether it contributes to establishing notability. A long list of links means very little until I have read the articles behind it.
I keep the notability objective in view throughout drafting. Every drafting decision needs to serve the article’s purpose. I ask why a section belongs, which sources support it and what it contributes to the reader’s understanding of the subject. I remove material that distracts from that central aim.
I regard establishing notability as just as important as compliance with Wikipedia’s three core content policies: verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. Those requirements work together. A strong source does not give me permission to exaggerate its findings. Several accurate sentences do not automatically establish that their subject warrants a separate article.
My objective is a clear, properly sourced encyclopaedia article. The client’s understanding of that objective matters. The process is much easier when you accept that the sources determine the article’s scope and that content-policy compliance is part of the work.
Wikipedia notability criteria for companies: build the case from independent coverage
For a company or organisation’s first draft, my working method is to use reliable, independent secondary sources that support or directly contribute to establishing its notability. That applies to the prose, the infobox and the references. I do not fill gaps with company material simply to make the draft look complete.
This is the source standard I apply to these commissioned first drafts. It is not a claim that primary sources are prohibited throughout Wikipedia. A document can establish a basic fact without contributing anything to the case for a separate company article.
A business may have an extensive website, an impressive client list and plenty of press announcements. I still need to examine what independent writers have published about it in significant depth. The company’s own account of its importance cannot substitute for that independent coverage.
Biographies need their own assessment. I consider the relevant biographical and occupation-specific criteria rather than applying the company test to a person. In either route, the published sources must support the article I propose to write. My earlier article on company Wikipedia page notability explores the distinction between notability and fame.
Reliable sources for Wikipedia: depth, independence and relevance
You can help me get started by submitting independent articles from mainstream media outlets that cover the subject in significant depth. Use WikiNative Studio’s drag and drop source uploader to put those materials in your private workspace. I can then inspect the sources themselves.
The publication’s name is only the beginning. I check who wrote the piece, what kind of article it is, how it was produced and how much it actually says about the subject. A passing mention in a major newspaper cannot be turned into substantial coverage by putting the newspaper’s logo beside it.
Consider three different items: a company announcement, a list that names the company and an independently researched feature examining its work in depth. They perform different jobs. Ten websites repeating the announcement do not become ten independent accounts. I need to identify the original reporting and understand its contribution.
I also read beyond the attractive sentence. The surrounding passage may qualify a claim, attribute it to the company or explain a limitation. I cannot strip away that context to improve the company’s image. The strongest case for notability comes from accurate treatment of suitable sources, not from making those sources sound more enthusiastic.
Wikipedia notability assessment: establish the starting point
My Preliminary Notability Assessment examines whether the available coverage supports proceeding with a new article. I identify the sources that contribute to the case, the weaknesses in the material supplied and the questions that need further research.
The assessment establishes a starting point. Detailed research continues during the commissioned project. A source may prove more useful when I examine its full argument; another may repeat material already accounted for elsewhere. I develop the draft around what that research establishes.
I define the proposed work from those findings. You can identify the subject, supply sources and answer factual questions. You cannot choose an unsupported list of topics and expect me to turn it into a Wikipedia article. If a proposed addition does not contribute to the notability objective or comply with the content policies, I explain the problem.
My consultancy services are available to paying WikiNative Studio subscribers. Assessments are ordered through the shop in your Studio account. The software subscription and commissioned editorial work cover separate parts of the service; the plans and prices page explains the current arrangements.
Wikipedia page creation process: strengthen the case, test and publish
I draft the article in your private MediaWiki workspace. I develop its structure, wording and references together, keeping the notability objective visible throughout. The source material determines the emphasis. I remove unsupported detail and material that does not contribute to that central aim.
You can follow the developing article and collaborate with me in real time during my working hours. Highlight a passage to ask a question or suggest a correction. Use the discussion page for longer suggestions, ideas and broader conversations. Keeping the discussion beside the draft helps me act on useful contributions.
I examine each suggestion against the sources and the article’s purpose. A useful contribution might identify substantial coverage I have not seen, explain which event a date refers to or point out that a passage misrepresents its source. The discussion should help establish notability and improve content-policy compliance.
I rigorously test the draft in SimSpace, checking its adherence to the notability objective and its compliance with verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. I also check the references, internal links, WikiText and finished wording. Private testing helps me identify problems before publication.
When the commissioned work is ready, I publish the article directly to the English Wikipedia’s mainspace myself. I do not hand the draft to someone else to publish. The published page remains subject to ongoing review and scrutiny. Once it is live, I do not edit it again unless you commission a separate editing project.
That is how the notability objective shapes my Wikipedia page creation process: it guides the research, the drafting, the discussion and the final checks. I use WikiNative Studio to keep that work together and make my processes more efficient. Your contribution is to engage with the process and help me build the strongest article the sources can support.
