Wikipedia pages
that survive review
Neutral, policy-compliant pages for companies, founders and public figures, built on independent sources in 160+ language editions, and defended after publication.
Neutral, policy-compliant pages for companies, founders and public figures, built on independent sources in 160+ language editions, and defended after publication.
A go / no-go verdict before you invest: we test your sources against Wikipedia’s notability policy.
Neutral, sourced articles for organisations and people, written by experienced editors.
New facts, funding rounds, awards and corrections added without triggering a revert.
Analysis of the deletion discussion and the realistic route back: undeletion, userfication or new sources.
Structured entity data that feeds Google’s Knowledge Graph and the language models that read it.
Edit alerts, vandalism response and yearly updates across every language edition you hold.
We audit your media coverage. Press releases and sponsored content don’t count. Independent, reliable sources do.
A neutral draft built only on approved sources, reviewed by you before anything is published.
In parallel we create or update your Wikidata entity, the data behind Knowledge Panels and AI answers.
Experienced editors publish gradually and answer community tags, talk-page questions and reviews.
Ninety days of monitoring included. If the page is nominated for deletion, we lead the defence.
A page deleted on day 30 is worse than no page. This is the matrix we run before every quote.
| Factor | Green light | Yellow flag | Red flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent media coverage | Tier-1 / Tier-2 outlets with editorial review | Mostly trade or regional press | Press releases and sponsored content only |
| Public footprint | Funding, awards, filings, public events | Some milestones, little third-party validation | No third-party context |
| Wikipedia history | Clean slate | Older draft, no deletion debate | Previous deletion or protected title |
| Conflict of interest | Independent sourcing, COI disclosed | Some legacy edits from related accounts | Heavy undisclosed self-editing |
Answer four questions. The verdict is indicative; the audit confirms it against the actual sources.
We test your coverage against Wikipedia’s notability guidelines: significant, independent, reliable secondary sources. If the base is weak, we say so and propose a realistic alternative: Wikidata, another language edition, or a media plan first.
Language models and search engines weight encyclopaedic sources heavily. Entities on Wikipedia and Wikidata are described consistently and accurately; those that aren’t get paraphrased, confused or skipped.
During the monitoring window we lead the discussion and defend the article on its sources. We start that work before nomination by building the page on sources that hold up.
Yes. We add updates, corrections and new milestones neutrally and with sources, so the edits stay.
Send us what you have: press coverage, target languages, existing URLs. We’ll come back with a realistic plan.