01
Notability assumed from prominence
Being successful, wealthy, funded, published or visible does not automatically satisfy Wikipedia’s notability framework.
Eligibility-first Wikipedia work
Before anyone writes the page, answer the only question that matters: are you actually eligible?
Stonebridge starts with independent-source strength, policy risk and notability, not with a sales promise. If we accept a new-page project after that review, publication is guaranteed under the written scope.
Specialist reviewConfidentialNo obligation
6,000Wikipedia projects delivered
97%historical project success rate
30 daysaverage project timeline
Complimentary • Confidential • No obligation
Free Wikipedia Eligibility & Source Assessment
Send the subject name and relevant links. We will evaluate independent sourcing, notability depth, conflicts and publication risk.
Wikipedia performance
Eligibility is determined by sources, not by prominence alone.
Stonebridge reviews the subject, source record and policy risks before accepting a new-page engagement.
97%
historical project success across 6,000 delivered Wikipedia projects.
For new-page projects, Stonebridge now accepts the work only after its eligibility/source review concludes the subject is sufficiently defensible. Accepted projects carry a 100% publication guarantee under the written scope.
6,000Wikipedia projects delivered
30 daysaverage project timeline
100%accepted new-page publication guarantee
Eligibility and source review
The first question is whether the subject has enough independent evidence for a responsible Wikipedia path.
Stonebridge classifies the source record before drafting or accepting a guaranteed new-page engagement.
Eligibility & source auditPolicy-led review
Source typeGradeControl
National business profileAIndependent
Trade publication featureAIndependent
Company announcementCPrimary
Interview / Q&ABMixed
Syndicated press releaseDPrimary
Illustrative audit verdict
Strengthen first
The subject may be credible, but independent source depth is not yet strong enough for Stonebridge to accept a guaranteed new-page engagement.
✓ Independence checked✓ Significant coverage checked✓ Source quality checked✓ Conflict / promotional risk checked
6,000Wikipedia projects delivered
97%historical project success rate
30 daysaverage project timeline
100%publication guarantee after accepted eligibility review
The source rows and verdict are an illustrative audit example. Wikipedia remains community-governed; the guarantee applies only to new-page projects Stonebridge accepts after its eligibility/source review.
Selected live profiles
Wikipedia and public-profile work across experts, companies and public figures.
These live profiles are connected to subjects shown in Stonebridge's public portfolio. Each engagement has its own scope, source record and editorial history.
Selected media/platform context connected to Stonebridge client work
ReutersAssociated PressForbesNewsweekBusiness InsiderMarketWatchEntrepreneurInc.Yahoo FinanceMorningstar
Where projects lose momentum
The biggest Wikipedia mistake happens before the draft exists.
A polished draft cannot compensate for weak independent coverage, promotional sourcing, conflict-of-interest risk or a subject that does not yet meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards.
02
PR mistaken for independent evidence
Press releases, paid placements, company bios and routine mentions can look impressive while adding little notability value.
03
Draft-first strategy
Writing before source qualification wastes time and can create a public rejection trail that makes later work harder.
How Stonebridge approaches the work
Eligibility first. Draft second. Submission last.
Stonebridge’s guarantee is based on refusing work that does not survive the audit, not on claiming control over Wikipedia.
Request the assessment →01
Source audit
Classify significant independent coverage, routine mentions, primary sources and weak/PR-driven material.
02
Policy risk review
Assess notability, promotional language, conflicts, biographies-of-living-persons issues and likely reviewer objections.
03
Neutral draft architecture
Build the article around what reliable independent sources can support, not what the client wants the article to say.
04
Submission & monitoring
Handle the approved publication route, respond to legitimate review issues and monitor the initial live period under scope.
What the engagement can include
A scope built around the subject, objective and work required.
The assessment establishes the starting point. Stonebridge then recommends a scope based on the subject, current position and work required.
✓
Eligibility verdict
A clear ready / borderline / not-ready assessment.
✓
Source map
Independent sources grouped by strength and likely encyclopedic value.
✓
Risk analysis
Policy, promotional, sourcing and conflict issues surfaced before drafting.
✓
Neutral draft
Source-led encyclopedic writing with unsupported marketing removed.
✓
Submission management
Appropriate submission/publication handling under the accepted scope.
✓
Initial monitoring
Post-publication observation and legitimate issue response within the contracted maintenance period.
Process
Four stages. One accountable strategy.
Each stage has a defined purpose, review point and next step.
01
Audit
Assess the subject and source record before accepting a page project.
02
Decide
Give a candid eligibility verdict and identify any source gap.
03
Draft
Write only what reliable sources can support in neutral encyclopedic form.
04
Publish
Submit/manage the accepted project and monitor the initial live period.
Project assurance
The guarantee comes from the audit, not from “connections.”
Wikipedia remains an independent platform governed by community policies and editorial processes. Stonebridge guarantees publication only for new-page projects it chooses to accept after an eligibility and source review supports that confidence.
- 100% publication guarantee on accepted new-page projects
- 97% historical success across 6,000 delivered projects
- No claim of ownership or control over Wikipedia
- If the subject is not ready, the audit should say so before a page is sold
Project fit
A strong engagement starts with the right conditions.
Fit depends on the subject, objective, evidence, current assets and the outcome the project needs to support.
Strong fit
- ✓ Subjects with multiple significant independent sources
- ✓ Companies or people prepared for neutral, source-led coverage
- ✓ Projects willing to exclude unsupported promotional claims
- ✓ Clients who prefer a candid eligibility verdict before spending on a page
Not a fit
- × A request to hide negative reliable coverage
- × A subject supported primarily by press releases or self-published material
- × A demand for promotional copy or controlled ownership of the article
- × A client unwilling to accept a “not ready yet” audit result
Frequently asked questions
Answers to common questions before beginning.
These answers explain scope, process, limitations and the commitments Stonebridge can make within a written engagement.
For new-page projects Stonebridge accepts after eligibility and source review, yes, publication is guaranteed under the written scope. We do not claim control over Wikipedia itself.
Independent source depth, notability indicators, source quality, conflict risk, promotional exposure and likely reviewer objections.
We will tell you. Where appropriate, we can separately recommend legitimate authority/editorial work, but we do not treat PR as an automatic substitute for independent notability.
You can review factual issues and provide sources, but a Wikipedia article must remain neutral and cannot be treated as controlled marketing copy.
Stonebridge’s historical average project timeline is around 30 days, although review timing can vary by project and Wikipedia process.
Monitoring and maintenance can be included under the agreed scope, particularly during the initial post-publication period.
Start with evidence
Free Wikipedia Eligibility & Source Assessment
Send the subject name and relevant links. We will evaluate independent sourcing, notability depth, conflicts and publication risk. If the project is not ready, the assessment should identify that before a larger engagement is recommended.