Simple English Wikipedia page: same notability bar, simpler text
Simple English Wikipedia is a separate edition of Wikipedia with about 250,000 articles written in short sentences and basic vocabulary. The notability bar there is the same as on English Wikipedia: independent reliable sources are required. The difference lies in style, text length and audience, not in what the sources must prove.
Paid edits are always disclosed on Wikipedia in the name of WikiBusines, on Simple English too. Page protection is applied only by Wikipedia administrators.
Notability on Simple English Wikipedia: the same bar as on English Wikipedia
Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and in several of them: under WP:NCORP for companies and WP:GNG for people. Simple English does not relax this. If there are no sources for an English page, there are none for Simple English either; what differs is style, text length and audience.
Two versions side by side: what is the same, what differs
English WikipediaSimple English Wikipedia
Addressen.wikipedia.orgsimple.wikipedia.org
Article languageregular Englishplain English: short sentences, basic vocabulary
Articles in the editionabout 7.1 millionabout 250 thousand
Notability bar=the same=the same
Ahrefs DR9492
Price, companyfrom €2,400from €1,500
Price, individualfrom €1,620from €1,250
Timeline4–5 weeks4–5 weeks
Ahrefs DR is a guide with a margin of up to ±2 points, checked 2026-06; Moz DA is 94 for both editions. The DR of Simple English is not higher than that of English Wikipedia. Article counts, DR and prices come from WikiBusines reference data, 11.2026. Links on Wikipedia are marked nofollow, so this is not a way to gain link weight: DR Checker →
auto
✓
Counts
Editorial articles in Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters, The Guardian or the BBC about the company or person itself
An investigation or review that devotes a substantive section to the topic
Books and studies by independent authors about the topic
Several such sources, not one: the combination is what counts
The Guardian · editorial article"The outlet examines in detail what Company N does and how its market has changed"significant and independent
✗
Doesn't count
Press releases, the company blog and website
Articles by founders and employees, LinkedIn, Medium and contributor columns
Sponsored content and "top 10" lists with paid participation
Simplified language: text in plain words without sources is removed just like complex text
PR Newswire · press release"Company N announced a new feature and a partnership"written by the company itself
◐
Gray area
A company registry or government record: it confirms a fact, not notability
Regional press: an editorial piece with substance counts, a single mention does not
Trade publications: we assess each piece separately, not the outlet as a whole
Awards and rankings: only as a fact, if independent press wrote about them
Company registry · record"Company N was registered in Ireland in 2016"a fact of registration, not notability
Too early? It is not a dead end: sources can be prepared.
Which sources count on Simple English: the same requirements as on English Wikipedia
Wikipedia keeps no official list of "good" outlets, but the community has set statuses for hundreds of sources (WP:RSP). Below are the outlets most often used as sources for articles about companies and people, with the WikiBusines working tier and the community status. What counts is a specific piece, not the outlet's brand. Simpler language does not replace a source.
auto
Financial Times
UK
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018
CountsEditorial news, investigations and major features about the company or person itself.
Doesn't countSponsored sections, partner content and pieces that retell a press release.
Bloomberg
Global
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025
CountsEditorial news and analysis about the company.
Doesn't countProfiles compiled from company press releases.
Reuters
UK
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018
CountsEditorial news about deals, regulator decisions and court cases.
Doesn't countDistributed press releases and partner-zone content.
The Wall Street Journal
US
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025
CountsEditorial articles and investigations that devote a substantive passage to the topic.
Doesn't countA one-sentence mention in a market overview.
The Economist
UK
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024
CountsEditorial pieces; we distinguish news from analysis.
Doesn't countOpinion columns used as confirmation of facts.
The New York Times
US
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024
CountsEditorial articles and reports about the topic.
Doesn't countColumns and blogs not marked as editorial.
The Guardian
UK
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025
CountsEditorial articles and investigations; opinion is read as opinion.
Doesn't countOpinion columns and blogs.
BBC
UK
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025
CountsEditorial pieces on the topic with their own sourcing.
Doesn't countA press release retold as news.
CNBC
US
no separate WP:RSP status
CountsEditorial pieces about a company or person.
Doesn't countPromotional interviews and sponsored roundups.
Wired
US
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025
CountsEditorial pieces about technology, products and the people behind them.
Doesn't countSponsored texts and partner reviews.
The Verge
Global
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024
CountsEditorial reviews and reports about a product or company.
Doesn't countAnnouncements based on a press release.
TechCrunch
Global
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025
CountsEditorial pieces tied to a news event: we assess each separately.
Doesn't countAnnouncements based on a press release and sponsored content.
The Irish Times
Ireland
no separate WP:RSP status
CountsEditorial pieces about a company or person, in English.
Doesn't countPartner sections and retold releases.
The Japan Times
Japan
no separate WP:RSP status
CountsEditorial pieces in English about a topic with regional context.
Doesn't countPromotional publications.
Handelsblatt
Germany
no separate WP:RSP status
CountsEditorial pieces about the company in German or English.
Doesn't countPartner sections and retold releases.
Le Monde
France
no separate WP:RSP status
CountsEditorial pieces in French about the topic.
Doesn't countColumns and pieces without an editorial byline.
Ukrainska Pravda
Ukraine
no separate WP:RSP status
CountsEditorial pieces with independent sources.
Doesn't countAdvertising and partner publications.
Ekonomichna Pravda
Ukraine
no separate WP:RSP status
CountsEditorial pieces about the company, each assessed separately.
Doesn't countRetold press releases and advertising publications.
PR Newswire
US
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2019
CountsOnly as a primary source that the company announced something.
Doesn't countNotability: there is no editorial review.
Crunchbase
US
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2019
CountsUsually nothing: the community decided not to use it as a source.
Doesn't countNotability and article facts: the database contains everyone.
Forbes Contributor
Global
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2026
CountsOnly as the author's opinion, not as fact.
Doesn't countNotability: this is not the outlet's editorial content.
Medium
Global
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2022
CountsNothing: self-publishing.
Doesn't countArticles by employees and the company itself.
Wikipedia (other articles)
Global
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024
CountsNothing: an open wiki is a self-published source.
Doesn't countAn English article as a source for a Simple English article.
Fandom
Global
year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2019
CountsNothing: an open wiki is a self-published source.
Doesn't countNotability and the facts of the article.
Tiers are a WikiBusines working classification, not an official list. Statuses come from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, CC BY-SA 4.0, revision 11.2026. Tier and status names are taken from our dataset.
How we read a piece: one publication, five checks, a verdict
auto
The GuardianTier 1
Company N enters new markets: what changed for its clients
editorial article · staff author byline
✓Independent of the company
✓Editorial piece, not a contributor's
✓Not sponsored
✓Substantial coverage of the topic, not a mention
✓Not a press release disguised as news
Counts as an independent sourcepassed 5 of 5
Outlet NTier 1
Company N raised a new round and launches a feature
“news” · text matches the company's press release
✗Independent of the company
✓Editorial piece, not a contributor's
✓Not sponsored
✗Substantial coverage of the topic, not a mention
✗Not a press release disguised as news
Doesn't count A retold press release is not independent coverage, even in a Tier 1 outlet.passed 2 of 5
Why Simple English articles get rejected: five typical reasons
A reviewer puts a tag on the article, and then it is either fixed or deleted. Below are five situations specific to Simple English: what is written "before" and what we write "after". These are schematics, not copies of articles; the tag names are illustrative.
auto
{{Complex}}The text is too complex for Simple English
Company N
Company N uses a cloud-based platform to help retailers manage their inventory and supply chains.
Company N makes software for shops. The software helps a shop count what it has and order more.[1]
how we write it
Why it gets rejected
Long sentences, abstract words and professional jargon are the style of regular English. For Simple English, a reviewer will tag the article for excessive complexity.
What we do
Short sentences, ordinary words, terms explained right away. The content and sources are the same, only the language is simpler.
{{Complex}}Looks like a translation of the English article without simplification
Company N
Company N, whose headquarters are in Berlin, was established in 2012 and its products are used by numerous retailers.
Company N is based in Berlin. It started in 2012. Many shops use its software.[2]
how we write it
Why it gets rejected
A literal or machine rendering of an English article keeps its long constructions. A dry translation does not become an article in plain language, and no one has checked its facts.
What we do
We rewrite the text by hand and check every claim against its source. We do not use machine translation.
{{Advert}}The article is written like an advertisement
Company N
Company N is the best and most loved app for learning English in the world.
Company N is an app for learning English. A newspaper wrote about the app in 2022.[3]
how we write it
Why it gets rejected
"Best", "leader", "full range of services" are advertising words. Simple words do not make a text neutral: an assessment without an independent source is still an assessment.
What we do
We write facts and show that independent press has written about the company. No assessments and no slogans.
{{Notability}}The topic's notability is not shown by independent sources
Company N
Company N is a famous company that many people know.[1] Source: its own press release.
Company N makes software for shops. A news agency wrote about its new office in 2023.[5]
how we write it
Why it gets rejected
The notability bar is the same as on English Wikipedia. An article built on press releases and the company's own pages will not pass there, and will not pass here: simpler text does not replace sources.
What we do
Source audit first. If sources are lacking, we say so honestly before submission and recommend a media program and Wikidata, not a submission on a hope and a prayer.
{{Cleanup}}The article needs rewriting in plain words
Company N
Company N is a German software company founded in 2012 and headquartered in Berlin. It develops inventory tools for mid-size retailers.
Company N is a software company from Germany. It makes tools that help shops keep track of their goods.[6]
how we write it
Why it gets rejected
A copy of the English text keeps the same long sentences. After separate edits the facts in the two versions also drift apart, and the reader sees different numbers.
What we do
We write a separate plain text with the same sources and check the facts against the English version. Annual support then keeps them aligned.
Translation is not simplificationMachine translation and a literal retelling of the English text do not work. We write by hand: briefly, in ordinary words.
The same circle of sourcesPress releases, Crunchbase, contributor columns and Wikipedia itself as a source count neither here nor on English Wikipedia.
This is not a way to get linksExternal links on Wikipedia are marked nofollow. A page is worth building for readers, search and AI, not for link weight.
Simple English Wikipedia article: short sentences, basic vocabulary, infobox
Every claim in the article rests on a source, there are no evaluative words, and the sentences are short and plain. There is a Criticism section if the press has written about criticism. The infobox gives the essentials: type, year founded, headquarters, products.
auto
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_N
Company N
language-learning company
History
Company N started in 2016 in Dublin.[1] At first it was a small app for learning words. In 2019 the company moved to a bigger office.[2]
1 The Guardian · editorial article ✓ independent
2 Company registry · record ◐ fact
What the company does
The company makes an app for learning English. People can use it on a phone.[3] Some lessons are free, and some cost money.[4]
3 BBC · editorial report ✓ independent
4 Company website · product description ◐ primary
Where it works
The company has offices in Dublin and Lisbon.[2] Most of the team works in Dublin.[5]
2 Company registry · record ◐ fact
5 Bloomberg · editorial piece ✓ independent
Criticism
In 2022 a newspaper said that some lessons had mistakes.[6] The company said that it fixed them.
6 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent
1 The Guardian · editorial article ✓ independent
References
1 The Guardian · editorial article ✓ independent
2 Company registry · record ◐ fact
3 BBC · editorial report ✓ independent
4 Company website · product description ◐ primary
5 Bloomberg · editorial piece ✓ independent
6 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent
What the article leaves out
Slogans and evaluative words: “leader”, “best”, “revolutionary”
Long sentences, jargon and words that a person with basic English does not know
Price tags, promotions and promo codes
Rankings and awards without an independent source
Photos and logos without a license
An English article translated without simplification
Creating a Simple English page: five steps in 4–5 weeks
The five steps are the same as for English Wikipedia. The difference is in how we write the text and what we check against the English version.
auto
Source audit
We check which materials already exist and sort them into those that count and those that do not. A notability audit takes 3–5 days, the result is a written conclusion, and its cost is credited toward the project if you order it within one month.
On Simple English: the rules are the same as for English Wikipedia. We separately check whether an English article already exists: that decides whether we adapt it or write a new one.
✓The Guardian✓BBC✗press release◐register
Draft and disclosure
We write a neutral text with footnotes for every claim. Paid editing is always disclosed on Wikipedia in the name of WikiBusines.
On Simple English: we write by hand in short sentences, replace unfamiliar words with simpler ones and explain terms. There is no machine translation.
✓disclosed: WikiBusines◐draft
Submission
We submit the draft for review by the Wikipedia community when the source base can bear it. If it can't, we say so honestly before submission.
On Simple English: the edition has its own editors and style rules, so we prepare the text for them and check facts against the English version.
◐draft→submitted for review
Review and edits
A reviewer may place a tag or ask for independent sources. We respond with edits, not arguments.
On Simple English: a reviewer may ask to simplify a sentence or explain a term. That is a style edit, not a rejection.
?sentence too complex✓simplified
90 days of monitoring
We watch the page for 90 days: edits, tags, deletion proposals. Page protection is applied only by Wikipedia administrators. If a published page could not be defended after 3 attempts within this window, we refund 80% of the project amount.
Next: annual support from €720/year extends the guarantee for another 12 months. Ongoing monitoring is not included in the page price.
Guarantee: 80% refund if a published page could not be defended after 3 attempts in the 90-day window. The price of an edition does not mean a lower bar: we check sources under the same rules as for English Wikipedia. Guarantee terms →
Simple English Wikipedia: frequently asked questions
Is this the real Wikipedia, or a workaround?
The real one. Simple English Wikipedia is a separate edition of Wikipedia that has existed since 2001, with its own editors, style rules and edit history. It is not a mirror and not a way around English Wikipedia: the article goes through community review, and notability is checked under the same rules.
Who is this edition for?
For readers who find regular English hard: people learning it, children, people with reading difficulties. It is a full encyclopedia, not a children's reference. That is why the article uses simple words and short sentences, while the facts and sources stay the same.
Why can't an English article just be translated automatically?
Machine translation keeps the long constructions, and a reviewer will ask to simplify them. It also does not check sources. We write the text by hand: short sentences, ordinary words, explained terms, and we take the same sources as for English Wikipedia.
Are the notability rules the same on English and Simple English?
Yes. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is required, in several of them. Style, text length and audience differ, but not the bar. That is why we do not treat Simple English as an easier path: if an English page was rejected for lack of sources, the same will happen here.
How much does it cost and how long does it take?
From €1,500 for a company, from €1,250 for an individual, 4–5 weeks. The price includes 90 days of monitoring and guarantee, and paid edits are disclosed on Wikipedia in the name of WikiBusines. If a published page could not be defended after 3 attempts in this window, we refund 80% of the amount. After that, annual support from €720/year.
Can I check for free whether my topic fits?
Yes. The first assessment is free and takes about 10 minutes; if the answer is a clear yes or no, no audit is needed. For unclear cases we offer a notability audit: from €490, 3–5 days, a written conclusion with a review of every source. Its cost is credited toward the project if you go ahead within one month.
Will Simple English replace the English page?
No. It is a separate edition with its own article, not a replacement for the English one and not a stepping stone to it. It fits when you need to explain the topic to an audience with basic English. An English article needs its own sources and a separate project.
We already have an English page. Why Simple English as well?
To describe a company or person in plain words for readers who are held back by complex English. The two articles are linked by interlanguage links and a Wikidata entry. We make sure the facts in them do not drift apart.
Does Simple English feed the Google knowledge panel and AI assistant answers?
Wikipedia is one of the open sources from which Google builds the knowledge panel and on which AI assistants rely, and Simple English is one of its editions. A panel cannot be ordered, and there is no public evidence that assistants favor this edition in particular. To describe a company in machine-readable form, see Wikidata and AI visibility.
Simple English Wikipedia: we will tell you honestly whether this edition fits
Send us a company name or a person's name and a few of the strongest publications. We will tell you whether the sources are enough, and if not, what to prepare.
1
Who or whatA company, person or product, countries, languages.
2
Three strongest publicationsEditorial pieces only, no press releases.
3
GoalSimple English, English or both, or source preparation first.
