Most people who ask for a Wikipedia page start in the wrong place. They draft a biography, polish a company history, or gather testimonials. Reviewers start somewhere else: the sources.
Wikipedia’s general notability guideline asks a narrow question. Has the subject received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Every word in that sentence does work. Skip any one of them and the draft usually fails, no matter how carefully it is written.
Significant coverage is not a mention
A name in a list, a quote in someone else’s profile, or a one-line award note is not enough. Significant coverage means the source spends real attention on the subject — typically multiple paragraphs that discuss who they are, what they did, or why it mattered.
Trade directories, conference speaker pages, and “top 40 under 40” roundups often look impressive in a pitch deck. On Wikipedia they rarely clear the bar unless the write-up itself is substantial and independent.
Independence rules out your own material
Your website, press releases, sponsored features, and company blogs do not establish notability. They can sometimes support basic facts later, but they do not prove the world has noticed the subject on its own terms. Wikipedia’s guidance on independent sources is blunt about this for a reason: the encyclopedia summarizes what others have already published, not what a subject wants published.
Reliability is about editorial control
Major newspapers, established magazines, academic presses, and serious trade journals with identifiable editors usually qualify. Personal blogs, social posts, most podcasts without strong editorial process, and user-edited sites usually do not. Borderline outlets exist; when they do, reviewers look at reputation, corrections policy, and whether the piece shows original reporting.
Subject-specific guidelines sit on top of the GNG
Academics, athletes, companies, and creative professionals have additional notability essays. Those guides refine the test. They do not replace the need for solid secondary coverage. A company that fails the general test will not be saved by a clever reading of the corporate notability page.
What a useful notability assessment looks like
Before anyone opens the editor, list the strongest independent pieces you can find. For each source, note the outlet, date, depth, and whether the subject is the focus. If you cannot name several substantial pieces, the honest answer is to wait — or to strengthen real-world coverage first — rather than force a draft into the review queue.
That early verdict is the difference between a durable article and months of declines. If you want a structured read on your own source pile, our Wikipedia page creation work begins with that assessment, not with a promise of publication.
