Which Wikipedia rules apply to a company, a founder and a public figure?
We call this the 3-Track Notability Model, and it is the first thing we apply to any case. The tracks differ in evidence, failure mode and correct first step.
| Track A: Company | Track B: Founder or executive | Track C: Public figure | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing guideline | WP:NCORP | WP:BIO | WP:BIO, with heavier privacy and accuracy stakes |
| What counts | In-depth independent coverage about the organization itself | Substantial coverage about the person as an individual | Sustained independent coverage over time |
| Does not count | Press releases, funding announcements, sponsored content, own website, directory listings | Self-authored op-eds, sponsored "executive spotlights", the company bio page | One-off tabloid pieces, promotional interviews, social posts |
| Typical pitfall | Coverage is about products or funding, not the organization | "I run a notable company, so I am notable" | Privacy and neutrality disputes; a thin page attracts vandalism |
| First step if short | Earn independent press over 6–18 months, consider Wikidata meanwhile | Wait for the profile that does not yet exist | Usually qualifies; focus on accuracy, sourcing, monitoring |
You are almost never on one track. You are choosing between tracks, and they do not share notability. A founder profiled by a major outlet sits on Track B whether or not the company was ever covered; a company covered in the financial press sits on Track A whether or not anyone wrote about its CEO. Decide the track first; the page type, sources and sequence follow.
How does a company qualify under WP:NCORP?
A company qualifies only through in-depth coverage about the organization in sources unrelated to it. NCORP asks for verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to it, and it says plainly that no company is considered inherently notable. Two words carry the weight: unrelated and notice.
Unrelated rules out everything the company produces or pays for: its site, press releases, funding announcements quoted verbatim, sponsored content, "as featured in" reprints and directory mentions. Notice means a source chose independently to cover the organization in depth, not mention it in passing. A press release republished by twenty outlets is still one non-independent source repeated; the sourcing standard is WP:RS.
This is where most B2B and SME assessments fail quietly. A company can have a busy press page and still not qualify, because the coverage is a product in a roundup, a funding round reported as routine news, or a CEO quote in a story about the industry. If multiple independent in-depth pieces about the organization exist, Track A is open. If not, no drafting skill closes the gap, and a thin submission mainly leaves a deletion record that makes the next attempt harder. For the patterns reviewers react to, see why Wikipedia pages get deleted; to test eligibility first, read Can My Company Get a Wikipedia Page?.
Does a founder or CEO get a Wikipedia page when the company has one?
No. A founder is notable only through coverage about them as a person, and the company's notability is not inherited. WP:BIO presumes notability when a person has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject; being famous or important is secondary to that coverage.
Take a common scenario. The company has clearly notable independent coverage, reporters quote the founder about the industry, and the company site has a flattering bio. On those facts the founder is not notable: quotes in context are not coverage about the person, a company bio is not independent, and industry commentary is about the topic, not a biography. What WP:BIO wants is the founder as the subject: a staff-written profile in a reliable outlet, an authored biography, a recognised award with independent write-ups, a book that gives real attention to them. A paid "executive spotlight" is not a source at all. Inclusion on a ranking list alone is thin evidence unless independent coverage follows.
The reverse also happens. A founder can be independently notable, say a recognised author or an awarded scientist, while the current company is a routine SME. Same person, two tracks, two answers.
What changes for a public figure?
For a genuine public figure the notability question is usually already answered, and the harder work moves downstream. Public figures such as politicians, recognised artists, broadcasters and prominent academics are still judged under WP:BIO, but three things shift:
- Neutrality under scrutiny. The article will be read and contested by strangers. Neutral point of view requires representing fairly and proportionately all significant published views; a flattering draft that omits documented controversy will be corrected by the community.
- The conflict-of-interest line. Under WP:COI, people close to the subject are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly and can propose changes on talk pages. The compliant path is to draft transparently, disclose the paid relationship under the Wikimedia Terms of Use and propose rather than impose. See paid editing, COI and disclosure.
- Privacy and accuracy. Biographies of living people carry stricter sourcing expectations, and errors have real consequences for the subject.
What is different for EU founders: non-English sources and privacy?
Two patterns come up constantly with European subjects.
Notability that lives in another language. A German, French, Polish or Ukrainian founder may be clearly notable, but the proof sits in national press or broadcasters rather than English-language media. Wikipedia accepts non-English reliable sources; reliability, independence and editorial reputation matter, not language (see reliable sources). It takes someone who can read and cite them, and often the right first page is not on the English edition at all. That choice is covered in the multilingual strategy guide.
The half-public individual and GDPR. The founder of a mid-size private company is notable enough to be of public interest in some respects and private enough that a full biography raises real privacy questions. Wikipedia's biographies-of-living-persons norms already counsel restraint with private details of marginally notable people, and EU data-protection expectations add a second reason for care. A responsible assessment sometimes concludes "not yet, and not this way", which is a legitimate, money-saving answer.
Which page should come first?
Answer in order and stop at the first "build this".
| Step | Question | If yes | If no |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does the company have several independent in-depth articles about the organization (not products, funding or releases)? | Track A is open; go to step 2 | Company not ready; go to step 3 |
| 2 | Does the founder separately have substantial coverage about them as a person? | Both may qualify: build the stronger-sourced one first, the other as its own article | Build the company page; the founder stays a redirect |
| 3 | Does the founder or public figure have substantial personal coverage even though the company does not? | Build the person page; the company waits for its own coverage | Go to step 4 |
| 4 | Is there a verifiable public record (registries, authoritative databases, a few reliable mentions) but not enough for an article? | Start with a Wikidata item and build sources for 6–18 months | Do not pursue a page yet; earn independent coverage first |
The recurring lesson: the right answer is often not the page the client first asked for, and sometimes it is not a page at all yet.
When is Wikidata the better first step?
When the subject is real and verifiable but does not clear NCORP or BIO today. Wikidata has a lower inclusion bar than a Wikipedia article: the entity must be identifiable and described by serious public references. A sourced item gives a machine-readable record of name, role, founding date and identifiers that knowledge graphs can use; it avoids a premature article and the deletion record that follows; and it buys time to earn the independent coverage that moves the needle. It is not a loophole and does not make an unqualified subject qualified. For the AI angle see Wikipedia, Wikidata and AI search and the Wikidata service.
How much does each page type cost?
A founder page and a company page are two projects with two notability cases, not a bundle discount. Company pages on English Wikipedia start at €2,400 and personal pages at €1,620; other editions are priced by tier, from €1,800 company and €1,400 personal for the largest editions down to €900 and €700 for smaller ones. A notability audit starts at €490 and is credited toward the page if you order it within one month. The full picture is in How Much Does a Wikipedia Page Cost?.
How WikiBusines helps
We assess all relevant tracks against your real sources, and our assessment can say no. Any paid editing we do is disclosed on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name, and we never guarantee that a page will be published or kept: that decision belongs to independent volunteer editors. After publication we monitor for 90 days; if a published page cannot be defended after three attempts within that window, we refund 80% (see /guarantees).
- Notability audit from €490: company, founder and public-figure tracks read against your sources; credited toward the page if you order it within one month.
- Page creation from €2,400 for English, 4–5 weeks; person pages from €1,620.
- Wikidata from €680 when an article is premature.
Start with the free 10-minute assessment: contact us. If the case is unclear, we offer the paid notability audit from €490, credited toward the page if you order it within one month. You can also check your coverage yourself with the notability index and the media list.
Frequently asked questions
Yes, but only if the person has significant independent coverage about them under WP:BIO: a substantial profile, an authored feature or a recognised award. Running a company, even a notable one, does not qualify a founder by itself.
No. Notability does not transfer between a company and an individual; each is judged on its own sources. A notable company with no in-depth coverage of its founder will not support a founder article.
No. A job title is never a qualification. WP:BIO looks for significant independent coverage of the person, and treats fame or importance as secondary to that.
They run under different guidelines, WP:BIO for people and WP:NCORP for organizations, though both rest on significant independent reliable coverage. The evidence differs: a personal profile for a founder versus in-depth coverage of the organization for a company.
Journalist-written profiles in reliable outlets, an authored biography and independently reported recognition are strong. Quotes in industry articles, the company's bio page and paid spotlights do not count.
No. Sponsored content is not independent and never establishes notability, for a person or a company.
Build whichever qualifies on its own sources; if both do, start with the stronger-sourced one and create the second as a separate article. If only one qualifies, the other can stay a redirect until its own sources exist.
Consider a sourced Wikidata item as a lower-risk first step, then spend 6–18 months earning genuine independent coverage and re-assess. Forcing a premature article mainly creates a deletion record that makes the next attempt harder.
Authors and editorial policy
Bohdan DubylovskyiCo-founder and CBO, WikiBusines→
Roman MelnykCo-founder & Chief Editor, WikiBusines→The article was prepared by the WikiBusines co-founders. We sell paid Wikipedia services, so we disclose this interest: paid editing is always declared on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name, and claims about the rules are backed by links to primary sources.
Editorial policy: payment disclosure, conflicts of interest, sources