Wikipedia Notability Audit

Wikipedia's notability standard for organizations reduces to three questions, and every source in your coverage is scored against all three:

• Significant coverage — does the source treat the subject in depth, or mention it in passing? Interviews, award listicles and "top 100" inclusions are trivial coverage and score zero.
• Reliable sources — is the outlet editorially controlled and recognized as reliable by the target edition's standards? Content farms, pay-to-publish platforms and syndicated press releases fail.
• Independence — was the coverage produced without the subject's involvement or payment? Advertising, press releases, the company's own site and commissioned pieces are not independent, whatever their polish.

The bar is conjunctive: a subject needs multiple sources that pass all three tests at once. That is the test set under which no company is inherently notable — and it is exactly the set the audit applies, because it is the set a deletion discussion will apply later.

• Standard — €490, 3–5 days. Up to ~15 candidate sources assessed one by one, a go / no-go notability verdict with a deletion-risk (AfD) rating, and a roadmap of what coverage is missing.
• Premium — €750, 5–7 days. ~25–40 sources including non-English and regional outlets, two language editions assessed, a competitor benchmark, a sequenced 90-day roadmap to close the gap, and a 30-minute strategy call.
• Comprehensive — €1,900, 1–2 weeks. Multi-market source discovery, a competitor, SERP and AI-answer benchmark (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity), a media-gap plan, a risk memo for legal / PR, and a 60-minute strategy session with written Q&A.

There is also a free 24-hour eligibility check — a triage read on whether your coverage is anywhere near the bar: ready, not ready, or needs a deeper look. No call required. Order: wikibusines.net/wikipedia-notability-audit.

The deliverable is a document you can hold the vendor to — this one or any other:

• The verdict: go or no-go, stated plainly, with the reasoning attached to named sources rather than vibes.
• Source-by-source scoring: each candidate source against the three tests, so you see exactly which pieces of coverage carry weight and which are dead weight.
• A deletion-risk rating: how the article would likely fare at AfD, based on what the strongest challenge would be.
• The roadmap: what coverage is missing, in what outlets and markets, and in what order to pursue it.

You keep the report and the reasoning either way. If the verdict is go, the audit converts into the page-creation source matrix with the fee credited; if it is no-go, the report is the plan you execute before trying again.

The audit is priced to be a step, not a toll: proceed to a page-creation project with WikiBusines within 15 days of the audit and the full fee — €490, €750 or €1,900 — is credited toward that project. A completed audit is delivered work and is non-refundable on its own; what you are buying is the verdict and the plan, and you get both regardless of which way the verdict goes.

Roughly speaking, a no-go means the sources are not there yet — and the honest response is to build them, not to fake them. The roadmap names the gap; for subjects that want managed execution, the Source Readiness Program (€1,200–€2,000 by scope, 3–6 months) works the gap systematically — earning genuine, independent, Wikipedia-eligible coverage in the outlets that count. 100% of the program fee is credited toward a page-creation project started within 12 months of completion.

One line that defines the service: WikiBusines does not create notability artificially. No fake coverage, no pay-to-publish source laundering, no resubmitting the same evidence under a new title. Subjects that cannot earn real coverage do not get Wikipedia pages — from anyone, durably — and being told that before spending four figures is the entire value of the gate.