For startups and founders, Wikipedia can feel like the missing piece of a modern visibility strategy. The encyclopedia’s 7 million-plus articles (in English alone!) rank prominently in Google results, provide text for knowledge panels, and power voice search responses from Alexa and Siri. And most importantly, Wikipedia is a top source cited by generative AI tools like Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini.
Given the site’s clear SEO and GEO/AEO importance, it’s not surprising that the “Why don’t we have a Wikipedia page?” question comes up so often, whether in #marketing Slack channels or late-night emails.
It’s a completely reasonable question with a frustratingly simple answer: Getting a Wikipedia article is incredibly difficult!
That’s not just a hunch. My Wikipedia consulting agency just completed an empirical audit of 1,009 new article drafts submitted through Wikipedia’s Article for creation (AfC) process.
The findings were stark: more than two-thirds of viable submissions were declined.
Approval rates varied by subject matter, but two draft categories fared especially poorly: Business (15 percent approval rate) and Business executives (12 percent approval rate). And the top reason for decline for each category was “lack of notability.”
I know that’s not great news to bring back to leadership. Luckily, there are concrete PR steps that startups and other tech companies can take to improve their odds. But first, it’s important to understand how Wikipedia editors determine whether or not a topic is encyclopedic.
Notability on Wikipedia is different than notability in the business world
The core issue is that Wikipedia’s definition of notability is not the same as a company’s definition of importance. A company may be fast-growing, well-funded, innovative, profitable, or strategically significant in its market. A CEO may be respected by peers, frequently quoted in trade media, or highly visible on LinkedIn.
All of those things are impressive. None of them matters to Wikipedia.
Here’s what notability means on the online encyclopedia: Significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.
For companies, that usually means in-depth journalism from staff writers at reputable outlets. Think a 1,200+ word piece in the Wall Street Journal, Wired, Bloomberg Technology, TechCrunch, or Information where the reporter explains why your company is attracting attention and details your founding, growth, and key personnel. There should be a clear hook that establishes encyclopedic notability, not just market prominence.
Wikipedia editors will not be impressed by press releases, guest columns, Q&A interviews, company blog posts, customer case studies, or database listings. A piece about your Series B announcement may matter enormously to investors and employees, but Wikipedia editors view it as routine business coverage.
Our report shows that many businesses appear to submit drafts too early, before they have the independent media record needed to support an article. This pattern was especially pronounced among technology companies, as many already had media coverage tied to product launches or funding rounds. That coverage can create a false sense of eligibility that encourages these companies to craft and submit drafts, often using LLM tools to do so. (In our dataset, technology-based business submissions had an approval rate of only 6 percent, and nearly one in five were specifically declined for suspicion of LLM usage.)
The good news: A path forward is possible
The practical takeaway for technology companies and business leaders is simple: Wikipedia article creation should begin with a media audit, not a draft.
Before writing anything, organizations should ask whether there is enough independent, reliable, in-depth coverage to support a standalone article. They should separate sources that merely verify facts from sources that establish notability. They should be honest about whether coverage is about the company itself—or about a trend or service area to which the company is linked. They should also understand that not every impressive organization belongs on Wikipedia.
This can be counterintuitive in a marketing environment that prizes speed. But on Wikipedia, premature submission can backfire. Declined drafts, repeated resubmissions, AI-written copy, and undisclosed conflicts of interest can all create a public record that makes future efforts more difficult. Patience and restraint are often better strategies than forcing an article before a critical mass of media coverage has been established.
The approved submissions for technology-based businesses in our dataset were characterized by extensive media coverage that well exceeded the thresholds set by Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. These articles featured in-depth coverage from top-tier outlets (not just industry publications) that clearly established why the business was important and what the public needed to know about it. And it was always the journalists writing these profiles who conveyed this information—not splashy quotes from the founder’s podcast appearance.
The bottom line is that Wikipedia can’t be considered a channel to activate. That can be a tough pill for leadership to swallow—especially when the CEO wants his or her own article as well. (As our data shows, that’s a similarly steep hill to climb.)
But the good news is that the same PR practices that help get your business noticed in the short term can eventually contribute to your Wikipedia notability down the line.
Keep working on this coverage and your startup may yet be deemed notable by Wikipedia editors.
