A Clear Go / No-go
A plain-language verdict you can act on, not vague encouragement to buy drafting you do not need yet.
The Wikipedia Studio is an independent editorial service and is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikipedia Notability Assessment
A notability assessment is a source-first review against Wikipedia's guidelines. You get a clear written verdict: proceed, wait for stronger coverage, or do not commission a page yet — with reasons tied to the sources we found.
The Short Version
A notability assessment answers one question: do independent, reliable sources already contain significant coverage of this subject? Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline and subject-specific guidelines set the bar. We search news archives, books, journals, and major trade press; grade each source for independence, reliability, and depth; then map what those sources can support. The output is a written verdict, not a sales pitch. If the coverage is thin, we say so before anyone drafts an article you will only see declined.
Editorial guidance from The Wikipedia Studio team. Primary references: notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and paid-contribution disclosure.
What This Service Covers
Scope is agreed in writing before work starts. Nothing on this list is an upsell — it is what a compliant, durable article needs.
What You Receive
A short written recommendation with the reasoning a stakeholder can follow without Wikipedia jargon.
Graded list of usable and unusable sources, with what each can support.
Which notability tests apply and where the subject currently passes or falls short.
If the answer is wait, what coverage would need to exist before a resubmission is honest.
How It Works
You share a short brief: identity, milestones, and any coverage links you already know.
We run an independent source search beyond the links you supplied.
Each candidate source is graded for independence, reliability, and depth of coverage.
We map findings against GNG and any relevant subject-specific notability guideline.
You receive a written verdict: proceed, wait, or do not commission — with the source list attached.
Results
A plain-language verdict you can act on, not vague encouragement to buy drafting you do not need yet.
What coverage exists, what is independent, and what is unusable (press releases, sponsored posts, self-published material).
If coverage is missing, we say what kind of independent reporting would change the picture — without pretending we can manufacture it.
Notability Assessment Questions
The questions clients ask most about notability assessment — on timing, scope, and what a disclosed editor can and cannot do.
Read The Full FAQAn initial screen for prospective clients is free. A deeper written dossier for boards or legal review is available as a paid standalone when you need formal documentation. Either way, we will not invent eligibility to sell drafting.
Creation is drafting and submission. Assessment stops at the source verdict. Many clients only need the assessment — especially when the honest answer is not yet.
We tell you plainly, return the source findings, and outline what independent coverage would change the picture. We do not take a creation fee for a draft that cannot meet the guideline.
Press releases and company blogs help us find dates and spellings. They do not establish notability. Only significant coverage by sources independent of the subject counts toward the guideline.
It can explain why the rejection happened and whether coverage has improved since. It cannot override volunteer reviewers, and it will not recommend resubmission if the underlying source problem remains.
Why Work With Us
Every engagement is run by editors who work to Wikipedia's published standards. Meet the team and how we work.
Ask for an honest notability assessment first. If the independent coverage is not there yet, we will tell you before any work is commissioned.
Request An Assessment