Do we qualify for a Wikipedia article?

Whether a subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article is a structured question with a specific answer in most cases. The threshold is significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources, and each of those four words carries weight in practice. Five Blocks’s readiness assessment catalogs the existing coverage against that standard before recommending any next step.

How the assessment differs by subject type

Corporate subjects (WP:NCORP)

We count in-depth pieces in outlets such as Bloomberg, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and major trade publications with genuine editorial standards. We discount press releases, wire-service syndications of company announcements, sponsored content, native advertising, and self-published material; these do not count toward notability even when they appear in major outlets.

Individual subjects (WP:NBIO)

We look for substantive coverage of the person’s professional or public activities in similarly authoritative outlets. Profiles, Q&As where the subject is the sole focus, and bylined work by the individual are counted differently from passing mentions. The same exclusions apply: press releases, interview quotes embedded in unrelated stories, and self-published sources are not independent coverage.

The three possible outcomes

Yes, the record supports notability

Sufficient in-depth independent coverage exists across multiple reliable outlets. We proceed to article creation through the disclosed conflict-of-interest process.

Yes, but, coverage is close but uncertain

The existing record is thin or concentrated in a single outlet. We identify the specific gaps and recommend either deferring until coverage strengthens or building it authentically before attempting the article.

No, the underlying record needs to develop

The available coverage does not meet the standard. Attempting an article now risks rejection at Articles for Creation review or a deletion nomination after publication. We say so directly rather than proceed and lose.

The assessment is qualitative, not quantitative: Wikipedia sets no fixed number of sources required, and a single piece in a top outlet rarely suffices on its own. The honest call up front prevents a predictable deletion downstream.