Why most startup Wikipedia pages fail the notability guidelines?

What is Wikipedia's notability?

​It is essentially a test, which allows editors to decide whether a topic deserves its own article on wikipedia pages. The general guidelines laid out by Wikipedia on notability are segregated into two categories:

• General Notability Guidelines
•  Subject-specific Notability Guidelines

Depending on the quality and quantity of reliable third-party sources, the information provided within the written content and external independent verifiable sources, editors decide the fate of a topic.

Startups fail to recognise what counts as third party reliable sources for wikipedia pages. A passerby's mention is not enough.

What works for notability in Wikipedia pages?​

Reliable Sources:

Third-party sources that are not legally owned by the startup and operate independently are counted as reliable sources. The more reputable, the better for Wikipedia pages. This means independent writers, journalists, and sources that are verifiable.

Significant coverage:

The third-party sources do not necessarily need to have written specifically on the chosen topic or the startup as a whole, but have significant in-depth discussion about the topic or the startup in question.

The company’s public documents do not count

Press releases, advertisements, web content, blogs, and articles written by and for the company’s own website do not count as primary or secondary verifiable sources. Most startups fail to recognise the difference of significant coverage and a passer’s by mention for wikipedia pages.

For example, an article talking about a specific industry may have two dedicated paragraphs about the concerned start-up. Most entrepreneurs would count this as significant coverage in comparison to an article mentioning the start-up in a single paragraph.

But, if the former has less information than the later it would not count as significant coverage or a primary reliable source for Wikipedia pages. This is not just a game of the number of words used to cover or mention a start-up. It is both subjective and objective. It depends on the quality of information given about the start-up in that article. If you recognise this issue at your end, it would be advisable to consult an expert on what counts as significant coverage.

What startups fail to overcome the guidelines challenge?

Most start-ups do not have enough connections to have verifiable third party sources write about them. Reputable independent sources pay less heed to startups unless they have received media attention beforehand. This is a marketing challenge for start-ups.

Consulting reputable and expert sources is necessary to have verifiable and reputable media outlets and independent outlets give your startup significant coverage.

Ensuring each news item about your startup gets attention in the press, and other verifiable media is crucial to having your wikipedia page verified. This is cumbersome, but the results and trust a Wikipedia page offers are still significant to investors today.

Conclusion

While Wikipedia strictly follows these notability guidelines, it is because of these guidelines that Wikipedia still serves as a trustworthy source. The stringent guidelines may seem difficult to pass through, but it allows your startup to have a reliable, trustworthy mention online and acts as a guiding source of your online presence.