Will Wikipedia think your page is notable

You require a Wikipedia page for your CEO, your brand, or even yourself. You understand how to tell the story but aren’t certain if the page will pass the publishing muster. Your victory lies in a single word – notability.
Notability is the test Wikipedia editors apply to decide if a subject merits its own article. You want to create a case, using only sources that Wikipedia recognizes, which describes why the entry warrants inclusion in a global encyclopedia.
Wikipedia’s requirements are exacting, especially for pages about living humans. You can’t incline on a blue checkmark on Twitter or a page on IMDb. Nor can you apply the loftiness of a client list or celebrity endorsements. Those credentials are admirable, but they are unreliable, according to the Wikipedia powers that be.
The notability silver standard is media coverage and that encompasses a variety of painstaking criteria. Let’s float into that rabbit hole.

Criterion 1: The coverage occur from a media outlet

The coverage you mention should come from the news media. PR content and Marketing, such as your website, news release, or even the bio from a speaker’s bureau, doesn’t cut it. You require coverage in books, magazines, radio shows, television shows, newspapers – this is Wikipedia’s strike zone. 
What about e-newsletters, blogs, and podcasts? While these platforms are a slice of the media ecosystem, they’re generally not high-profile enough to reach the notability requirements. (Exceptions include Stratechery, SCOTUSblog, and the Daily.)

Criterion 2: The outlet is notable

Not only do the sources require to be independent, but they should be notable or chunk of the mainstream media. A trade or local publication (Think: ARLnow or PR Daily) is less helpful than a national or regional one (Think: CNN or The Star-Ledger.) 
What counts as mainstream? That’s somewhat gray. As a rule of thumb, the outlet should employ issue corrections and editors when errors are made.

Criterion 3: The outlet is independent

Your media citations must be independent of the page’s topic. This criterion rules out anything you publish yourself. (Sorry, Kindle Direct Publishing authors.)
It also rules outsources you might think are excellently acceptable. For example, the Washington, D.C., chapter of the American Marketing Association published a profile of mine, a volunteer for the group, on its website. Independent, this is not.
Here’s another framework as Let’s say you are a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and are featured on FreeEnterprise.com. Unfortunately, the site isn’t credible in Wikipedia’s eyes as it’s funded by the chamber.  
Be careful about mainstream outlets that have both self-published and paid platforms.

Take the well-known website Medium. On one hand, much of the material here is self-published, which signifies it is not independent. On the other, sections of Medium, like OneZero, operate with reporter and full-time editors, making them fall into the mainstream category. To wit: you cannot cite medium.com; you can cite onezero.medium.com.  
The same holds correct with sponsored content. It’s not a credible source as it’s pay to publish. Even if the content is published on a mainstream media site, it still doesn’t match Wikipedia’s credibility standard. (Just ask The Atlantic, which was popularly pushed to rescind its puff piece on Scientology.)

Why media coverage is the gold standard. Here’s the view from Wikipedia: To be covered in the media, a reporter must faith the subject is interesting or important. The reporter’s content goes through a review procedure that traditionally includes even lawyers, fact-checkers, and editors.  
While media coverage may be a distorted form of validation, it’s the least unsound one available. Indeed, Wikipedia worthiness has proven to be such an unbiased benchmark that social media companies, like Twitter, may soon utilize it in deciding which handles warrant a coveted verification badge.

Criterion 4: The coverage concentrate on the page subject

The media coverage must include more than a mention of your topic. In other words: Being quoted twice or once in an article is not particularly assist. Being quoted extensively is brighter but not significantly sufficient. What you require is coverage where your subject is the focus.

Criterion 5: The coverage is online

Once you have media coverage that reaches the above criteria, then you require the original links. Put simply, if the blog doesn’t come online — so others can access and verify it — then you can’t cite it. This is a slice of Wikipedia’s ban on original research; every claim you make must be diligently footnoted.

Criterion 6: The coverage is sustained

Finally, you want to demonstrate the media coverage isn’t just significant but sustained. For example, if all the clips come from the past four months, then Wikipedia in all probability considers you to be “notable for only one event.” In such cases, your best bet is not to develop a new page but to pursue inclusion in an existing one.

Other coverage options

If you battle to round up sufficient mainstream media links, don’t give up. You can explore alternative coverage examples, such as:

•            Mentions of awards earned by the page topic

•            Op-eds written by the page topic

•            Keynote conference presentations supplied by the page subject

Create with confidence. The bottom line: Wikipedia is a maze of guidelines and policies. (Yes, those are two different things.) These rules can be unforgiving, opaque, and even contrasting. (One of Wikipedia’s five pillars is Wikipedia has no firm rules.) |
These walls protect the encyclopedia’s integrity, contributing to its high rankings in Google. But Business start-up quotes also lead to Wikipedia’s reputation for being inhospitable to the uninitiated.
To ignore that fate, concentrate on that one word – notability – and all that it encompasses in Wikipedia.