•
Ayush Goyal
68% of Wikipedia submissions are rejected. 57% of those fail because of one thing: notability. This blog is entirely about notability — what it means, how it is measured, which subjects qualify and which do not, and what the numbers say about your chances.
Table 1: Wikipedia Notability Rejection Data (2025–2026)
These figures come from the Lumino Digital study (2026), the first large-scale empirical audit of Wikipedia's Articles for Creation (AfC) process, covering 1,009 submissions from September and October 2025.
Notability Metric | Figure | Source |
Total AfC submissions studied | 1,009 | Lumino Digital AfC Report, 2025–26 |
Overall AfC rejection rate | 68% | Lumino Digital AfC Report, 2025–26 |
Share of rejections caused specifically by notability failure | 57% | Lumino Digital AfC Report, 2025–26 |
Second most common rejection reason (after notability) | Promotional tone / NPOV failure | Lumino Digital AfC Report, 2025–26 |
Notability failure rate for startups and tech companies | 94% rejected (only 6% approved) | Lumino Digital AfC Report, 2025–26 |
Notability failure rate for business executives | 88% rejected (only 12% approved) | Lumino Digital AfC Report, 2025–26 |
Notability failure rate for general business articles | 84% rejected (only 16% approved) | Lumino Digital AfC Report, 2025–26 |
AfC drafts currently pending review (July 16, 2026) | 5,179 drafts | Wikipedia:AfC Help Desk, July 16, 2026 |
Typical wait time for AfC notability review | Up to 3 months or more | Wikipedia:AfC Help Desk, 2026 |
Source: Lumino Digital Wikipedia AfC Approval Rates Report (2025–26) | Wikipedia:AfC Help Desk (July 16, 2026)
Notability is the single largest cause of Wikipedia rejection. It accounts for more than half of all declined submissions. A well-written draft with strong formatting does not overcome a notability problem. The subject either has sufficient independent press coverage or it does not.
Table 2: Notability-Based Approval Rates by Article Category
Approval rates differ sharply by subject type. The difference is not writing quality. It is whether the category of subject typically generates the kind of independent press coverage that meets the notability standard.
Article Category | Approval Rate | Rejection Rate | Why Notability Succeeds or Fails in This Category |
Arts and Culture | 48% | 52% | Cultural subjects attract organic independent journalism without PR involvement |
General Business | 16% | 84% | Most business submissions cite press releases and company-arranged coverage rather than earned journalism |
Business Executives and CEOs | 12% | 88% | WP:BIO requires coverage of the individual specifically; company coverage does not substitute |
Startups and Tech Companies | 6% | 94% | Submitted before earned media establishes notability; lowest approval of all categories |
Source: Lumino Digital Wikipedia AfC Approval Rates Report (2025–26) | Based on 1,009 AfC submissions
Primary cause of the 6% startup approval rate: companies submit Wikipedia pages before they have generated enough earned, independent media coverage to meet WP:N. Writing a better article does not solve a coverage gap.
Table 3: The Three Tests Inside Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:N)
Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) requires that a subject passes three distinct tests simultaneously. Passing two and failing one is not sufficient.
Notability Test | What It Requires | What Passes | What Fails |
Test 1 — Significant coverage | The source devotes meaningful space to the subject itself, not a passing mention | A full profile, a detailed news report, an investigative piece about the subject specifically | One-line mention in a funding roundup; the subject listed alongside 10 other companies |
Test 2 — Reliable sources | Sources must have editorial oversight, fact-checking, and accountability for what they publish | National newspapers, established business magazines, peer-reviewed journals, books by credible publishers | Press releases, company blogs, social media posts, content farm websites |
Test 3 — Independent of the subject | The journalist covered the subject without direction, briefing, or involvement from the subject | A journalist who found the story independently and wrote without being approached by the company | An interview the company arranged; a profile the CEO was paid to appear in; a guest column the subject wrote |
Source: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) | Wikipedia:General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG)
Table 4: All Wikipedia Notability Guidelines by Subject Type
Wikipedia applies different notability thresholds depending on the subject's category. These are the specific policy codes and what each one requires.
Subject Type | Policy Code | Notability Requirement | Most Commonly Failed Element |
All subjects (baseline) | WP:N / WP:GNG | Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources | Independence of coverage |
Companies and organisations | WP:CORP | Coverage beyond routine announcements, directory listings, or product reviews | Depth of coverage — mentions alongside competitors do not qualify |
Startups and tech businesses | WP:CORP | Same as WP:CORP; no reduced standard for early-stage companies | Earned media does not yet exist at submission time |
Individual biographies | WP:BIO | Recognised beyond a narrow professional circle; independent coverage of the person, not just their company | Person-level press coverage that exists separately from the organisation they lead |
Academic and scientific figures | WP:PROF | Published in peer-reviewed journals; widely cited within the academic field | Citation count and recognition beyond a single institution |
Books and authors | WP:AUTHOR | Published by a credible mainstream publisher with independent critical coverage of the work | Independent reviews in mainstream press, not just publisher promotional material |
Websites and online platforms | WP:WEB | Significant coverage in reliable sources — offline press is weighted most heavily | Digital-only subjects struggle because offline mainstream coverage is rare |
Non-profit organisations | WP:ORG | Wide mainstream press coverage beyond local community or sector-specific publications | National coverage rather than local-only press |
Biographies of living persons | WP:BLP | All WP:BIO requirements plus strict sourcing for any negative claims about the person | Unsourced negative content triggers BLPPROD deletion independent of notability |
Source: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) | WP:CORP | WP:BIO | WP:PROF | WP:AUTHOR | WP:WEB | WP:ORG | WP:BLP | Lumino Digital AfC Report (2025–26)
Table 5: Specific Reasons Notability Fails — With Frequency Data
Within the 57% of AfC rejections caused by notability failure, the failure traces to specific patterns. These are the most common causes and how frequently each appears.
Notability Failure Reason | How Frequently Seen | Why This Fails WP:N | What Would Change the Outcome |
Subject submitted before sufficient earned media exists | Most common for startups — primary cause of 6% approval rate | No independent coverage exists yet to establish significance under WP:N | Wait until 3 to 5 substantial independent articles are published before submitting |
Only press release pickups counted as notability evidence | Most common error in all business submissions | 40 sites reprinting one announcement equals one source; independence test fails | Original independent journalism where a journalist wrote about the subject without being approached |
Coverage exists but is not significant enough in depth | Common | Single-sentence mentions do not pass the significant coverage test | Profile-level or depth journalism about the subject in at least one credible publication |
Sources pass reliability but fail independence | Common for PR-driven companies | An interview the company arranged still lacks full editorial independence under WP:N | Coverage where the journalist initiated contact, not the company's PR team |
Coverage only in trade or niche publications | Common for B2B businesses | WP:CORP expects mainstream press; trade-only coverage is insufficient alone | At least one national business newspaper alongside trade coverage |
Executive has no coverage separate from their company | Near-universal for exec and founder bios | WP:BIO requires the person to be covered as an individual, not just as part of company news | Profile of the person specifically in mainstream press, not just company PR coverage |
Social media following or subscriber count cited as significance | Growing problem | Wikipedia does not recognise social metrics as evidence of notability under any guideline | Press coverage of the subject in editorially independent publications |
Award from a non-notable or self-selected organisation | Occasional | Award must come from a notable, independently recognised body to contribute to notability | Awards from organisations that themselves have Wikipedia articles and mainstream press coverage |
Source: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) | WP:CORP | WP:BIO | Lumino Digital AfC Report (2025–26)
Table 6: Notability Benchmarks — What Wikipedia Reviewers Practically Expect
Wikipedia's policy does not state a minimum source count. But based on WP:N guidelines and documented AfC reviewer practice, these are the practical benchmarks that determine whether a submission is likely to pass.
Notability Benchmark | Minimum to Pass | Strong Notability | Note |
Number of independent articles about the subject | 3 substantial independent articles | 5 or more across different credible publications | Each must independently cover the subject in depth, not just mention it |
Type of publication required | At least one national or mainstream business publication | Multiple national publications plus credible regional or trade press | Trade press alone does not meet WP:CORP; mainstream press required |
Depth of each article about the subject | Substantial coverage — more than a sentence or list entry | Full profile, interview, or investigative piece | Roundup articles that mention the subject alongside 10 competitors carry little weight |
Independence of each article | No company arrangement or direction in the coverage | All coverage journalist-initiated without PR involvement | Even accurate coverage the company arranged is treated as weaker |
For individual biographies — person-level coverage | At least 2 articles about the person specifically, not their company | Multiple person-level profiles in mainstream press | Company founding and funding news does not substitute for individual press coverage |
Currency of coverage | No strict rule but recent coverage is weighted more heavily | Mix of historical context and recent independent journalism | Very old sources for current claims may be questioned by reviewers |
Source: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) | Wikipedia:CORP | Wikipedia:BIO | Documented AfC reviewer practice
Table 7: Wikipedia Deletion Routes Triggered by Notability Failure
When a subject fails notability, the page can be removed through three different processes depending on how obviously it fails and whether any editor contests the deletion.
Deletion Route | Code | Notability Trigger | Timeline | Can Be Recovered? |
AfC Decline — pre-publication | AfC review | Reviewer finds the subject's coverage does not meet WP:N; draft never goes live | During review (up to 3 months wait) | Yes — improve notability evidence and resubmit |
Speedy Deletion — No importance claim | CSD A7 | Published article makes no claim that the subject is notable; no credible indication of significance | Within hours of publication | Yes — add notability claim; appeal via WP:REFUND |
Proposed Deletion | PROD | Page is non-notable but not obviously so; no editor objects within 7 days | 7-day window | Yes — any editor can remove the PROD tag |
Articles for Deletion | AfD | Notability is disputed; community debates and votes on outcome over 7 days | 7-day community discussion | Partially — Deletion Review (DRV) available but rarely overturns community consensus |
G13 — Stale draft deletion | CSD G13 | Draft with notability problems not improved or resubmitted within 6 months | After 6 months of inactivity | Yes — WP:REFUND/G13 request available |
Source: Wikipedia:CSD A7 | Wikipedia:PROD | Wikipedia:AfD | Wikipedia:G13 | Wikipedia:Deletion policy
A page that goes through AfD and is deleted creates a permanent public record. Future submissions on the same subject face a higher bar because reviewers can see the prior deletion discussion. Premature submission is more damaging than waiting.
Summary: What the Notability Data Tells You
57% of Wikipedia rejections are caused by notability failure. Startups face a 94% rejection rate. Business executives face 88%. The cause is consistent: pages are submitted before the subject has generated enough independent earned media coverage to satisfy WP:N.
Notability cannot be fixed in the draft. The coverage must exist in the real world before a Wikipedia submission is made.
The practical notability rule: 3 or more substantial, independent articles in credible mainstream publications where the journalist wrote about the subject on their own initiative — before any draft is started.
ExpertRight starts every Wikipedia project with a notability eligibility assessment using the same framework Wikipedia reviewers apply. Free check before any project begins. www.expertright.com/wikipedia-page-creation
Ayush Goyal
CEO
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg display="block" id="1177514292" role="presentation" viewBox="0 0 144 24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path d="M 16.985 0.004 C 17.921 -0.028 18.855 0.131 19.728 0.471 C 20.602 0.811 21.397 1.326 22.065 1.984 C 22.708 2.652 23.212 3.442 23.545 4.308 C 23.878 5.173 24.034 6.097 24.005 7.024 L 24.005 16.984 C 24.005 19.064 23.325 20.854 22.025 22.114 C 20.646 23.387 18.821 24.066 16.945 24.004 L 7.065 24.004 C 5.204 24.062 3.397 23.383 2.035 22.114 C 1.359 21.438 0.831 20.63 0.482 19.74 C 0.132 18.851 -0.03 17.899 0.005 16.944 L 0.005 7.024 C 0.005 2.804 2.805 0.004 7.025 0.004 Z M 17.035 2.234 L 7.065 2.234 C 5.615 2.234 4.365 2.664 3.535 3.484 C 3.091 3.957 2.747 4.513 2.524 5.122 C 2.301 5.73 2.202 6.377 2.235 7.024 L 2.235 16.944 C 2.235 18.444 2.665 19.644 3.535 20.524 C 4.505 21.382 5.77 21.83 7.065 21.774 L 16.945 21.774 C 18.239 21.83 19.504 21.382 20.475 20.524 C 20.94 20.063 21.305 19.511 21.546 18.901 C 21.787 18.292 21.899 17.639 21.875 16.984 L 21.875 7.024 C 21.907 5.737 21.441 4.487 20.575 3.534 C 20.102 3.091 19.545 2.747 18.937 2.524 C 18.329 2.3 17.682 2.202 17.035 2.234 Z M 12.005 5.764 C 15.395 5.764 18.205 8.564 18.205 11.964 C 18.205 13.609 17.551 15.185 16.389 16.348 C 15.226 17.511 13.649 18.164 12.005 18.164 C 10.36 18.164 8.783 17.511 7.621 16.348 C 6.458 15.185 5.805 13.609 5.805 11.964 C 5.805 10.32 6.458 8.743 7.621 7.58 C 8.783 6.417 10.36 5.764 12.005 5.764 Z M 12.005 7.984 C 10.953 7.989 9.947 8.409 9.203 9.153 C 8.46 9.896 8.04 10.903 8.035 11.954 C 8.04 13.005 8.46 14.012 9.203 14.755 C 9.947 15.499 10.953 15.919 12.005 15.924 C 13.056 15.919 14.063 15.499 14.806 14.755 C 15.549 14.012 15.969 13.005 15.975 11.954 C 15.969 10.903 15.549 9.896 14.806 9.153 C 14.063 8.409 13.056 7.989 12.005 7.984 Z M 18.445 4.214 C 18.816 4.214 19.172 4.362 19.434 4.624 C 19.697 4.887 19.845 5.243 19.845 5.614 C 19.845 5.985 19.697 6.342 19.434 6.604 C 19.172 6.867 18.816 7.014 18.445 7.014 C 18.073 7.014 17.717 6.867 17.455 6.604 C 17.192 6.342 17.045 5.985 17.045 5.614 C 17.045 5.243 17.192 4.887 17.455 4.624 C 17.717 4.362 18.073 4.214 18.445 4.214 Z M 64.008 4.374 C 63.111 4.784 62.157 5.054 61.178 5.174 C 62.216 4.534 62.987 3.539 63.348 2.374 C 62.398 2.954 61.348 3.374 60.218 3.594 C 59.762 3.093 59.206 2.692 58.586 2.418 C 57.966 2.145 57.296 2.003 56.618 2.004 C 55.864 2.012 55.121 2.19 54.446 2.526 C 53.771 2.862 53.181 3.346 52.72 3.943 C 52.259 4.54 51.939 5.233 51.785 5.971 C 51.63 6.709 51.645 7.473 51.828 8.204 C 49.858 8.096 47.933 7.57 46.183 6.659 C 44.433 5.749 42.897 4.475 41.678 2.924 C 41.042 4.037 40.846 5.347 41.13 6.597 C 41.413 7.846 42.154 8.944 43.208 9.674 C 42.424 9.645 41.658 9.426 40.978 9.034 L 40.978 9.104 C 40.978 11.544 42.678 13.584 44.928 14.054 C 44.204 14.253 43.444 14.28 42.708 14.134 C 43.338 16.144 45.158 17.604 47.308 17.644 C 46.294 18.466 45.126 19.076 43.871 19.437 C 42.617 19.797 41.303 19.902 40.008 19.744 C 42.248 21.222 44.874 22.008 47.558 22.004 C 56.618 22.004 61.558 14.304 61.558 7.634 L 61.558 6.984 C 62.518 6.274 63.348 5.384 64.008 4.374 Z M 104.008 12.074 C 104.008 5.414 98.638 0.004 92.008 0.004 C 85.378 0.004 80.008 5.404 80.008 12.074 C 80.008 18.104 84.398 23.104 90.138 24.004 L 90.138 15.564 L 87.088 15.564 L 87.088 12.074 L 90.128 12.074 L 90.128 9.414 C 90.128 6.394 91.928 4.714 94.668 4.714 C 95.978 4.714 97.348 4.954 97.348 4.954 L 97.348 7.924 L 95.848 7.924 C 94.348 7.924 93.888 8.854 93.888 9.814 L 93.888 12.074 L 97.208 12.074 L 96.678 15.574 L 93.878 15.574 L 93.878 24.004 C 99.628 23.104 104.008 18.104 104.008 12.074 Z M 142.238 0.004 L 121.778 0.004 C 120.808 0.004 120.008 0.774 120.008 1.724 L 120.008 22.284 C 120.008 23.234 120.808 24.004 121.778 24.004 L 142.238 24.004 C 143.218 24.004 144.008 23.234 144.008 22.284 L 144.008 1.724 C 144.008 0.774 143.208 0.004 142.238 0.004 Z M 127.278 20.104 L 123.658 20.104 L 123.658 9.244 L 127.278 9.244 Z M 125.478 7.764 L 125.448 7.764 C 124.228 7.764 123.448 6.934 123.448 5.894 C 123.448 4.834 124.248 4.024 125.498 4.024 C 126.738 4.024 127.498 4.824 127.518 5.894 C 127.518 6.934 126.738 7.764 125.468 7.764 Z M 140.348 20.104 L 136.718 20.104 L 136.718 14.304 C 136.718 12.854 136.198 11.854 134.888 11.854 C 133.888 11.854 133.288 12.524 133.018 13.174 C 132.918 13.404 132.908 13.724 132.908 14.054 L 132.908 20.104 L 129.288 20.104 C 129.288 20.104 129.338 10.284 129.288 9.264 L 132.918 9.264 L 132.918 10.804 C 133.245 10.235 133.722 9.767 134.297 9.45 C 134.872 9.133 135.522 8.978 136.178 9.004 C 138.568 9.004 140.358 10.564 140.358 13.894 L 140.358 20.104 Z" fill="rgb(171, 173, 176)" height="24.00802570357824px" id="IfK7ZtMsG" stroke-dasharray="0" stroke-linecap="butt" stroke-linejoin="miter" stroke-miterlimit="10" stroke-width="1" stroke="rgb(0, 0, 0)" width="144.00800323486328px"/></svg>)