# How to Verify Wikipedia Notability Before Drafting a Page

March 31, 2026

You found a topic, wrote a draft, and hit submit, but then no page appears and no feedback arrives. Worst case scenario would be you facing a sudden deletion notice, which is exactly what we cover in why Wikipedia pages get deleted and how to avoid it.

This is the moment most newcomers quit, but here is the truth: the deletion didn't happen because of your writing but because you skipped the step where experienced editors check if a topic is ready.

This guide walks you through that missing step to properly verify Wikipedia notability before you commit a single word to a draft.

## Where do you even start looking for "proof"?

According to Wikipedia notability guidelines, an approvable topic has three characteristics: independent sources, reliable sources, and significant coverage. Most beginners open Google, type a name, and assume the first page of results counts as research, yet that instinct is exactly why drafts fail at Articles for Deletion.

The Open Web is a trap because it is filled with noise, often empty or paid.

What to avoid:

- Self-published platforms like Medium and LinkedIn articles - they look professional but are considered primary sources since anyone can publish anything there without editorial oversight.
- Company websites and "About Us" pages - automatically disqualified during any WP:BEFORE search because they lack a neutral perspective.
- Sponsored or "brand voice" content on major news sites - these are paid placements disguised as journalism.

You need to know where the real evidence lives and what Wikipedia editors actually recognize as valid, which is explained in our guide on what counts as reliable sources for Wikipedia.

### The "Deep Web"

You can find real proof where journalists, researchers, and academics publish work that is fact-checked and edited, and while these sources require more effort to access, they are the only ones that fulfill requirements when you check Wikipedia eligibility against community standards.

Key databases:

- Google Scholar - academic papers, court opinions, and conference proceedings. If a professor, scientist, or expert has been written about in school research papers, you will find it here.
- Google News - newspapers going back centuries. Use date filters to find original reporting from when the subject first came out, since old coverage often gives the deepest look because it was written before the subject could control the story.
- JSTOR and ProQuest - school journals and major magazine collections. These are the main tools mentioned in the WP:BEFORE deletion checklist when you are researching history or school topics.
- Newspapers.com - old newspapers saved as digital copies, so if your subject lived before 1980, this is where you will find the proof.
- The Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) — old versions of websites. If a source existed but the link is now dead, put the URL into the Wayback Machine to find its archives.

### The Library Card Hack

- Local library card - unlocks thousands of dollars worth of databases, since libraries give free remote access to paywalled content from The Wall Street Journal, school journals, and newspaper collections that normally charge subscription fees.
- The Wikipedia Library - gives eligible editors free access to elite access databases like JSTOR, Cambridge Journals, and ProQuest, and you can apply once you have made a few edits.
- Resource Exchange (WP:RX) - a help desk where volunteers find and share access to books, articles, and documents not available online. Simply post what you need, and someone with access to analogue library resources finds it for you.

### Wait, your topic is specific... (The SNG Shortcuts)

Wikipedia has subject-specific notability guidelines SNGs if your topic presents notable figures, academics, artists and creators, business and fiction.

You can establish presumption of notability faster, so think of it as a fast lane. This is why always use the subject-specific guideline that fits your topic, since it will save you hours of work and increase your chances of Wikipedia draft approval.

## The Mirror Test to Check Wikipedia Eligibility

When you search for someone online, the first things that pop up are usually their own website, their social media profiles, or an interview they gave last year.

While these feel like proof, to Wikipedia editors this is just noise and markers for disqualification. You need to understand how to tell apart primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Think of it as the Mirror Test:

Mirror - source reflects what the subject wants you to see → fails.
Window - source looks in from the outside → passes.

This difference is the very base of the Wikipedia page criteria, and sources that fail this test are thrown out by reviewers before they even read your draft.

### Understanding sources

Primary sources - original materials close to an event, often written by people directly involved. They give an insider's view but do not help prove notability on their own. Examples include a science paper showing a new experiment, a story written by someone who saw it happen, or even breaking news stories. You can use them carefully for simple facts, but any explanation or meaning needs a reliable secondary source.

Secondary sources - thoughts and analysis based on primary materials, since they contain analysis, evaluation, and meaning. A review article that looks at research papers in a field is a perfect example. Wikipedia articles should mostly rely on material from reliable secondary sources.

Tertiary sources - are a collection of primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source, as is any encyclopedia or resource with several kinds of information.

Cheat sheet:

Source Example | It is a... | Does it count?
--- | --- | ---
An interview with the subject | Primary Source | No (Subject is speaking)
A press release on a news site | Primary Source | No (Paid distribution)
A review of their work (positive or negative) | Secondary Source | Yes (Independent analysis)
A profile written by a journalist | Secondary Source | Yes (Independent reporting)
Their personal blog or website | Primary Source | No (Self-published)
A biography published by a university press | Secondary Source | Yes (High authority)

The pattern: When you sit down to check Wikipedia eligibility, you are hunting for the green checks on the right side of this table.

## The "Google News" trick (How to search like an insider)

Here is how to search like an insider.

Step 1: Exact Match

Use quotes around the full name.

"Jane Doe"

If Jane Doe is a common name, add a relevant keyword inside the quotes, like "Jane Doe" + architect.

Step 2: Exclude the Noise

Filter out the subject's own website and social media by using the minus sign and site operator.

"Jane Doe" -site:instagram.com -site:linkedin.com -site:janedoe.com

This skips non-independent coverage, leaving you third-party or independent publications and reliable secondary sources.

Step 3: Find the Origin

To locate the significant coverage that first established their reputation, set a date filter.

"Jane Doe" before:2015

This reveals the in-depth sources independent journalists produced before the subject could control their own story.

## Always Tally with Wikipedia's Reliable Sources (PERENNIAL List)

Go straight to WP:RSP (perennial sources list). Think of it as the referee's rulebook that has a collection of sources that qualify, disqualify or have an unclear status.

This is a non-negotiable step when you verify Wikipedia notability because you could have ten articles from Forbes.com contributors and they would count for absolutely nothing, yet one single article from The Guardian carries real weight due to its established fact-checking reputation.

Before you add any source to your draft, check it against WP:RSP, and if you cannot find it there, look for community discussions about that outlet. When in doubt, treat it as a marginal reliability source (one that might not be trustworthy) and leave it out unless you have no better option.

## How to do the "Pre-Draft" Check (The 10-Minute Audit)

Experienced editors never start drafting without running a pre-draft audit that takes about ten minutes and saves you weeks of frustration. You can also check Wikipedia’s search engine test to understand how to choose a topic. This audit is how you check Wikipedia notability eligibility before investing time and energy.

Here is exactly how to do it:

1. Open five tabs. Pull up what you believe are the five strongest sources you found during your search. You want the five that look the most promising since this is your due diligence step (doing your homework before you start).
2. Copy the URLs into a document. This creates a record you can refer back to.
3. Ask three questions for each source

- Is this source from a publication listed as reliable on WP:RSP?
- Is this source independent of the subject (not paid for, and does not rely heavily on interviews with the subject)?
- Does this source provide significant coverage (SIGCOV) - meaning at least a few paragraphs specifically about your subject, not just a trivial mention (a quick name drop) or passing mention (mentioned in one sentence)?

4. Score each source. A source gets one point for each of the three questions you can answer "yes" to. Be ruthless here because citation overkill (adding many weak sources) does not help.
5. Total your score.

Score | Verdict
--- | ---
3+ Points | You are safe to draft. The Wikipedia page criteria are likely met.
1-2 Points | High risk, so consider merging (adding your content to an existing page instead of creating a new one).
0 Points | Abort mission because no amount of good writing will fix a lack of secondary sources.

## Using "Redirect" if All Else Fails

Wikipedia does not care who "owns" a page, but whether the information ends up somewhere useful. Redirecting means you take the name you wanted to write about and point it to a section on a larger, already existing page.

In some cases, editors may list the redirect at RfD (Redirects for Discussion) if they disagree on the target, but most plausible search terms are kept.

How to suggest a redirect:

- Go to the Talk page of the existing article and explain your reasoning, being honest that the Wikipedia page criteria for a standalone page are not met even though the information adds value to a broader topic.
- If the redirect is pointed to a section that does not yet exist, create a section anchor first.

Editors respect this approach because it shows you care about the encyclopedia, not just getting your page approved. Plus, if the subject later gains more coverage, you can always revisit the standalone draft since a redirect is not a rejection but rather a strategic pause.

## You Are Now Ready to Start

You now have the framework that experienced Wikipedia editors use before they ever type a single word of an article. As we have understood, the process always starts the same way: sources first, text second.

Before you open a draft:

- Run the audit
- Gather your sources
- Test them against the mirror check
- Ask if they are independent, reliable, and significant

Taking these steps will help you verify Wikipedia notability upfront, avoid rejection, and move toward Wikipedia draft approval with confidence. This time you spend checking before you write is the best investment you can make in your article's survival.

## Frequently Asked Question

### Q: Can I use Wikipedia as a source?

No. Wikipedia is what editors call a tertiary source since it summarizes other sources rather than producing original reporting or research. Instead, you need to find the original sources to satisfy reliability and independence.

### Q: What if my sources are not in English?

Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable since Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and notability exists in every language.

### Q: My client was in the news for a scandal. Can I write about it?

Proceed carefully because Wikipedia has a specific guideline called BLP1E - Biographies of Living Persons with only One Event. If a person is primarily known for a single incident, the encyclopedia typically covers that incident in depth rather than creating a standalone biography about the person.

### Q: What is a "dead link"?

A dead link is a URL that no longer leads to the original content. You can search the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) for archived versions of the page, and use the source if a copy exists with the full article intact.

Contact Us

Let's discuss your content goals. Scale content with a dedicated account manager.

- Custom writer vetting and management
- High volume and high quality content
- Consistent publishing schedules
- Premium customer support

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Phone
Company
Please describe your content needs *