Wikipedia for crypto · notability index 2026
In crypto, 98% of topics in our 2018–2026 assessments have low confidence in notability, 1% medium and another 1% high. That is the worst figure of the 13 sectors: a page is possible when the general financial press, not just crypto media, has covered the project. The audit tells you this honestly before you pay for a page.
// 98% low confidence — our assessment pipeline, not the market · prices from the 11.2026 price list · paid edits are disclosed in WikiBusines' name
Company N
From Wikipedia
Company N is a cryptocurrency exchange founded in 2017. It has been the subject of a regulatory case,[1] a withdrawal outage[2] and a lawsuit.[3]
Sources the scanner reviews
editorial article on the regulatory case
✓ countsinvestigation into the withdrawal outage
✓ countseditorial article on the lawsuit
✓ countsnews item on a token listing
✗ does not countpress release about a new service
✗ does not countfacts yes, notability not by itself
✗ does not countCompany N
From Wikipedia
Company N is a DeFi protocol on Ethereum, launched in 2021.[source?] The protocol was hacked in 2023.[1]
Sources the scanner reviews
editorial article on the protocol hack
✓ countstoken and staking announcement
✗ does not countpress release about an airdrop
✗ does not countfounder's post about the roadmap
✗ does not countprofile in a startup database
✗ does not countcontributor column on tokenomics
✗ does not countCompany N
From Wikipedia
Company N is an NFT project on Ethereum, launched in 2022.[source?] The collection is mentioned in market overviews.[notability?]
Sources the scanner reviews
one-paragraph mention in a trend piece
✗ does not countcollection review
✗ does not count“top collections” roundup
✗ does not countteam post about the drop
✗ does not countdrop announcement
✗ does not countindustry sales ranking
✗ does not countWhy a page
Honestly: a page is possible only for some projects, because the index shows 98% of topics with low confidence in notability. But where one exists, it is one of the few neutral descriptions of a project outside crypto media.
Exchanges, partners and investors start due diligence with a search. A neutral, sourced article shows the project without marketing.
Wikipedia is one of the sources the knowledge panel draws on. There is no guarantee a card will appear, but without an article the chances are lower.
ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity often rely on Wikipedia when answering “what is this project”. Without it, the answer is assembled from less reliable sources.
Crypto has many projects with the same name, and fakes. A sourced article helps tell the real project apart and correct outdated or foreign facts.
A neutral article built on general and business press; crypto media do not count toward the tally. We recommend starting with the audit.
from €2,400 (English) · 4–5 weeks · 90 days of monitoring and guaranteeNew funding rounds, licences, products, management, removal of outdated content: only with independent sources.
€700–€1,900 · 2–3 weeksAnnual page support: monitoring of changes and vandalism, which matters especially in crypto.
from €720/year · 12 months of guaranteeWe always disclose paid edits on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name. Page protection is applied only by Wikipedia administrators.
01Will it pass
On Wikipedia a company is notable if there are several significant, independent and reliable sources about it (the WP:NCORP rule): substantive coverage, not mentions and not the company's own words. Traffic, investment, customer numbers or token market cap prove nothing by themselves.
Exchange N suspends withdrawals: what is known about the outage
editorial article · staff reporter byline
Counts. The independent press itself decided this event was worth writing about.
Why Project N's token appeared on a major exchange: analysis
editorial article · market analysis
Counts, if the piece is about the project and not a short listing announcement.
How Protocol N was hacked and where the funds went: investigation
investigation · negative story
Counts. What decides is independence and depth, not a positive tone; a neutral article includes this event too.
Project N adds a token to its listing
specialist outlet news item
Does not count. In our dataset CoinDesk is in the “avoid” tier (WP:RSP, 2023): the community advises choosing general press.
Project N announces a strategic partnership
press release · no editorial review
Does not count. These are the company's own words, even when a large outlet published them.
Project N figures
Does not count. Metrics describe the market, not coverage by independent journalists.
SEC v. Company N: complaint
regulator document · facts yes, notability no
Grey area. The complaint confirms the facts, but what counts is an independent press article that described the case.
Project N: network upgrade overview
The Block, Cointelegraph, Decrypt · we assess each piece separately
Grey area. There is no status in our dataset, so we do not rely on such outlets while general press is available.
Company N founder: how we are building the exchange
interview · the company speaks for itself
Grey area. This can confirm a single fact but not notability: the source is not independent.
Notability index: all 13 sectors →Notability audit →
Five niches of the sector rated by sources. A click on a niche highlights the matching profile in the scanner at the top of the page.
counts: Financial press on regulatory decisions, lawsuits, outages and large deals.
does not count: Specialist crypto media, listing news, partner reviews and the exchange's own blog.
scanner profile: exchangecounts: Rare pieces in major outlets about a hack, incident or regulatory case, devoted specifically to the protocol.
does not count: Whitepapers, documentation, community forums, listing announcements and token analytics from specialist sites.
scanner profile: DeFi protocolcounts: General-press reports on a high-profile collection or a fraud, if they are about the project and not the trend.
does not count: Drop announcements, Discord and Telegram chats, paid reviews and “top 10 collections” roundups.
scanner profile: NFT projectcounts: Technical analysis in major tech outlets and scientific or engineering publications about the network or wallet itself.
does not count: Developer blogs, roadmap updates, ecosystem grants and sponsored case studies.
counts: General-press pieces in which the outlet or analytics firm is itself the subject of an investigation, not a source of quotes.
does not count: Citations of their texts by other crypto sites, their own rankings and reports.
Expert assessment by the WikiBusines editorial team, 11.2026, not part of the index dataset.
Low confidence is not a verdict on the project but an estimate of its chances of a Wikipedia page specifically. Other routes give visibility without this threshold.
An entry on the company in the knowledge graph: reliable sources are needed, but the notability threshold is lower than Wikipedia's.
from €680 Wikidata →An independent encyclopedia with paid editorial review and no media-coverage requirement. Less trusted than Wikipedia.
alternative wiki Wikitia →Another alternative wiki with softer notability requirements. Suitable as an intermediate step, not a replacement for Wikipedia.
alternative wiki EverybodyWiki →A media programme prepares sources: pieces in the general and business press that can later be used for notability.
sources programme Media publications →If the goal is for AI assistants to name the project correctly, Wikipedia is not required. The cost is not credited toward another project.
€490 AI audit →02Sources
Some crypto media are funded by the industry they cover (advertising, sponsorship), so the Wikipedia community usually does not consider them reliable for notability. Below are the real tiers and statuses of outlets from our dataset: a click on an outlet shows what from it usually counts.
counts editorial pieces on regulatory cases, lawsuits, outages and large deals
does not count pieces that only quote the company, and partner content
Counts if the piece is editorial, independent of the project and substantive.
counts editorial pieces by Bloomberg News on deals, finance and investigations
does not count Bloomberg profiles: in our list they are tier 3, because they are usually compiled from the company's press releases
Counts if the piece is editorial, not a profile built from company data.
counts editorial articles, investigations and market analysis
does not count columns by outside authors and pieces marked as partner content
Counts if the piece is editorial, independent of the project and substantive.
counts editorial pieces by staff reporters and investigations
does not count opinion columns as facts and passing mentions
Counts if the piece is editorial, independent of the project and substantive.
counts editorial articles when the outlet's section has an editorial consensus
does not count sections without consensus, roundups and partner content
According to the dataset, the outlet's reliability is situational: we assess each piece.
counts nothing for notability: the consensus is to choose general press
does not count listing news, reviews, interviews and any piece as evidence of notability
Does not count. The outlet is in the “avoid” tier, status “generally unreliable”.
counts only as a reference link, not as a source for claims
does not count a database profile as evidence of notability: everyone is in the database
Does not count. Status “deprecated”: the community decided not to use it as a source.
counts nothing: it is not the outlet's editorial content
does not count any contributor column, even on a major outlet's site
Does not count. Forbes staff writers are a separate row in the dataset.
counts editorial pieces about companies that have raised funding
does not count sponsored and contributor sections, light mentions
Reliable with caveats: we assess the specific piece, not the outlet as a whole.
counts editorial technology pieces about networks and products
does not count partner and advertising content
Counts if the piece is editorial, independent of the project and substantive.
counts news and investigations about the project or its founders
does not count passing mentions in roundups and market overviews
Counts if there is a substantive piece about the project, not a mention.
counts news and investigations; columns only as the author's opinion
does not count Guardian blogs and columns as confirmation of facts
Counts if the piece is editorial, not a column.
counts editorial news and investigations
does not count opinion columns and passing mentions
Counts if the piece is editorial, independent of the project and substantive.
counts business pieces in German: useful for regional notability
does not count press releases and passing mentions
No WP:RSP status in the dataset: tier assigned by the WikiBusines editorial team.
counts editorial pieces on the US market and regulator decisions
does not count partner content and passing mentions
WP:RSP: generally reliable (2024). Counts if the piece is editorial, independent of the project and substantive.
TierTier 1 · reliableTier 2 · with caveatsAvoid
WP:RSP statusgenerally reliableno consensusgenerally unreliabledeprecated
Community statuses: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, CC BY-SA 4.0, revision of 11.2026; tiers are a WikiBusines working classification, not an official list. The year is the outlet's most recent discussion on WP:RSP.
This is how we check each link before putting it into the tally. The piece counts, not the outlet.
Exchange N: regulatory case and withdrawal outage
editorial article · staff reporter byline
Counts as an independent sourcepassed 5 of 5
Project N launches a token and opens staking
“news” · text matches the project's press release
Does not count A recycled press release in an outlet in the “avoid” tier gives no notability.passed 2 of 5
03Risks
A reviewer sees weak sources or promotional tone and adds a tag. The tags in the mock-ups are schematic. Below are the five reasons crypto pages most often fail, and how we write instead.
Company N
beforeCompany N is a leading next-generation exchange changing the future of finance.
afterCompany N is a crypto exchange founded in 2017. Reuters and the Financial Times have reported on its operations.[1][2]
Crypto topics are often written by people with a commercial interest, so reviewers look closely at authors and sources. Promotional tone and an undisclosed connection to the company are the shortest route to a tag and deletion.
this is how we write: neutrally, with disclosure in WikiBusines' nameCompany N
beforeCoinDesk, Cointelegraph and Decrypt have written about the exchange.[1][2][3]
afterReuters and the Financial Times reported on the exchange's outage.[1][2]
The Wikipedia community does not consider most crypto media reliable for notability: in our dataset CoinDesk is in the “avoid” tier. Three links to such sites weigh less than one to Reuters.
this is how we write: crypto media are replaced with general and business pressCompany N
beforeThe protocol has record TVL and unique deflationary tokenomics.
afterThe protocol launched in 2021. It was hacked in 2023; Reuters and Bloomberg reported on the incident.[1][2]
TVL, trading volume and tokenomics are market metrics. They do not prove notability, and in text they read as advertising. Without a secondary source, such claims will not be in the article.
this is how we write: figures only where independent press has described themCompany N
beforeThe token rose 300% in a week, and thousands of wallets received the airdrop.
afterIn 2024 the project distributed tokens among users; Bloomberg described the event.[1]
Exchange rates and token distributions are market events, not coverage of the company. Three pieces on a price rise on crypto sites do not create notability.
this is how we write: no exchange rates or price tags, only events from reliable sourcesCompany N
beforeA long five-section article with six links to the project's site and blogs.
afterA short neutral article based on two independent general-press pieces.[1][2]
A weak page can be nominated for deletion as promo. In crypto this risk is the highest: by our index, 98% of topics have low confidence in notability. A short article on two strong sources is better than a long one on weak ones.
this is how we write: if there are too few sources, we say so before submission04Article
Every claim in the article has a footnote to an independent source. The scanner shows exactly where the source sits, and the “What is left out” tab shows what reviewers will not leave in.
Company N
From Wikipedia
Company N is a crypto exchange founded in 2017.[1]
Since 2019 the exchange has operated in European markets.[1] In 2022 it suspended withdrawals because of an outage; the general press covered the event.[2]
The company provides spot trading and asset custody.[1] The services are described from outlet reports, not from the company's website.[2]
The regulator opened a case against the exchange in 2023.[1] The complaint is cited as a fact, and the press describes the case.[2]
The section describes the event, date and consequences neutrally.[1] It contains no assessments or assumptions.[2]
Every claim has a footnote; notability rests on several independent pieces, and the other sources are for reference.
auto
05Process
Five steps from audit to monitoring. Each has a feature specific to a crypto project. After publication, a 90-day window of monitoring, support and guarantee runs.
We count the significant independent pieces about the project and classify each outlet.
In crypto: crypto media are not counted; we count general and business press.
3–5 daysWe write a neutral draft on reliable sources; paid editing is disclosed in WikiBusines' name.
In crypto: we replace links to crypto media with general press; we do not add price tags, TVL or tokenomics.
disclosureWe submit the draft for review on Wikipedia.
In crypto: we prepare for the reviewer's heightened attention to authors, sources and tone.
reviewWe respond to the reviewer's comments, add sources and shorten the text.
In crypto: if there are too few sources, we say so honestly rather than propping the text up with weak links.
revisionsWe watch the edits and fend off deletion attempts. Protection for the page is applied only by Wikipedia administrators.
In crypto: deletion is the most likely outcome, so the guarantee applies: 80% refund if the page could not be defended after 3 attempts.
90 days06Pricing
Audit first: in 98% of cases the honest answer is “too early”. If it is “yes”, the cost of the audit is credited toward the project if you order it within one month.
from €490
from €2,400
from €1,500
Guarantee: 80% refund if a published page could not be defended after 3 attempts within the 90-day window. Guarantee terms →
07FAQ
The rules are the same (WP:NCORP), but in practice the bar is higher: by our 2026 index, 98% of crypto topics have low confidence in notability. This also applies to blockchain infrastructure: the difference is only in the sources, since a Bloomberg or Reuters piece about a network weighs more than dozens of crypto-site pieces about a token. In our niche assessment, infrastructure is also “almost never”, because such pieces are rare.
In our dataset CoinDesk is in the “avoid” tier: the Wikipedia community (WP:RSP, 2023) advises against using it for notability. Cointelegraph has no status in the dataset, so we assess each piece and do not build notability on it. Crunchbase has the status deprecated: useful for reference, not for notability. A regulator's complaint or register is a primary document: it confirms facts, while notability comes from an independent article that described the case.
It can: the test is independence, reliability and depth, not a positive tone. If Reuters, Bloomberg or the Financial Times wrote about the incident, a neutral article will include this event too, with links to those pieces. If only crypto sites did, no.
Only if an independent reliable outlet has described them. The project's own materials (whitepaper, documentation, blog) are primary sources and do not confirm notability, and Wikipedia does not allow original conclusions (WP:OR). TVL and volumes are market metrics, not evidence.
We recommend starting with the audit. In crypto the honest answer in 98% of cases is “too early”, and the notability audit (from €490, 3–5 days, written conclusion) shows this before you spend money on a page. The cost of the audit is credited toward the project if you order it within one month.
Then a Wikipedia page is unlikely right now; that does not mean the project is hopeless. There are Wikidata (from €680), Wikitia or EverybodyWiki, publications in independent outlets that prepare sources, and the AI visibility audit (€490) if the goal is for AI assistants to name the project correctly.
A notability audit from €490 gives a written conclusion in a few days: whether general press has independent pieces about the project and what is missing. If the answer is “too early”, you leave with a map of the gaps in your sources.
or write to us: team@wikibusines.com · Telegram
