Author: Lauren Sanders

For fintech companies and financial advisory firms, a Wikipedia page can seem like an important credibility marker. It appears at the top of search results when prospects research your firm, and it signals that you’ve reached a certain level of industry recognition.

Wikipedia can be a valuable asset for firms that qualify, but it operates differently from a traditional marketing platform. As a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, Wikipedia has strict, specific standards about what belongs there.

If you’re considering creating a Wikipedia page for your firm, understanding how Wikipedia works will help you make a smarter decision about whether it’s the right move for your business.

Wikipedia’s Notability Requirements

Wikipedia asks one fundamental question: Is your firm genuinely notable enough that independent journalists and researchers have written substantial articles about it?

Keep in mind this does not mean: Is your firm successful? Do you manage significant AUM? Have you won industry awards?

Instead, Wikipedia looks for evidence that your firm has had a broader impact worth documenting in an encyclopedia. Your firm needs significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 

Let’s break down each element of Wikipedia’s notability requirements:

• Multiple sources: At least 3-5 substantial articles, not just brief mentions
• Independent sources: Written by journalists with no financial connection to your firm 
• Substantial coverage: In-depth articles that actually analyze your firm (not just press release rewrites or directory listings)
• Reliable publications: Major newspapers (Wall Street Journal, Financial Times), national business magazines (Forbes, Bloomberg Businessweek), respected financial services publications (American Banker, Financial Planning, InvestmentNews with editorial analysis, not just announcements)

Importantly, these sources do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for independent notability:

• Press releases (even when distributed through Business Wire or PR Newswire)
• Firm blog posts and self-published materials
• Social media profiles and posts
• Paid or sponsored content
• Industry awards where you submitted your own data 
• Brief mentions in larger articles about industry trends
• Directory listings (even detailed ones like Bloomberg company profiles or Crunchbase)
• Podcast appearances and conference speaking engagements
• Client testimonials and case studies
• Industry surveys where you voluntarily provided data

The Step-By-Step Process for Creating a Wikipedia Page

Step 1: Create an Account

You need a Wikipedia account to create articles, which can create challenges right from the start. 

If someone from your firm creates an account, Wikipedia editors will check the account history. They’ll see it’s a single-purpose account created solely to write about your firm, raising immediate questions about neutrality.

If your marketing agency creates it, you face the same scrutiny. Plus, you’re legally required to disclose the paid relationship under Wikipedia’s terms of use, and that disclosure makes removal more likely.

If you use an established editor’s account, you’re asking someone to risk their Wikipedia reputation; most experienced editors won’t do this.

Step 2: Gather Your Sources

At this point, most firms will discover whether they meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements.

Compile every article ever written about your firm and evaluate which ones meet Wikipedia’s standards:

• Independent publications (not self-published)
• Substantial coverage (not brief mentions)
• Editorial content (not press releases or paid placements)
• Significant sources (major publications with editorial oversight)

For most RIAs, broker-dealers, and fintech companies, the list is shorter than expected. Even firms with $1B+ AUM or significant venture funding may find they lack the kind of independent editorial coverage Wikipedia requires.

Step 3: Write the Article

If your firm has enough sources to meet Wikipedia’s standards, you can begin writing the article.

To be accepted, it must be written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and can’t include promotional language or marketing terms like “leading,” “innovative,” “cutting-edge,” or “premier.” Don’t emphasize AUM growth, client satisfaction scores, or technology capabilities unless these are the specific subjects of independent coverage.

This level of objectivity can be more challenging than people think, especially if you’re accustomed to marketing language that emphasizes competitive advantages.

Step 4: Submit for Review or Publish Directly

Once the article is written, you have two options: 

• Articles for Creation (AfC): Submit your draft for volunteer editors to review. They’ll evaluate whether it meets notability guidelines. This is the safer approach, but rejection rates are high.
• Direct publication: If you have editing privileges, you can publish directly. This is faster but riskier. The article will be flagged immediately and scrutinized heavily.

Step 5: The Review Process

Within hours or days of publication:

• Automated tools flag your article. Wikipedia has systems that detect new articles about companies and tag ones that might need review.
• Experienced editors review it. Real humans examine your sources. They search for additional coverage you might have missed, and evaluate whether your company meets notability standards.
• Discussion may begin. If editors have concerns about whether the article meets guidelines, they may nominate it for deletion, which opens a public discussion that lasts about a week.
• The community weighs in. Multiple editors examine your sources and debate whether the coverage is sufficient; the consensus opinion determines the outcome.
• A decision is made. Articles that don’t meet notability guidelines typically get deleted. A record remains in Wikipedia’s system of the attempt.

Step 6: Understanding the Record

Even after deletion, Wikipedia maintains records of previous submission attempts. If you attempt to create an article in the future, editors will note previous deletions when evaluating the new submission.

Managing Your Published Article

If your article is published, it’s important to understand how Wikipedia pages work long-term:

Anyone Can Edit It

Once your page is live, you no longer control it. Anyone on the internet can edit your page, including:

• Competing RIAs or broker-dealers
• Former advisors who left your firm
• Securities attorneys representing clients in disputes
• Investigative journalists covering financial services
• Compliance professionals and industry watchdogs
• Random editors who disagree with your framing

The account that created the page has zero special privileges. You get one vote in disputes, the same as everyone else. For heavily regulated financial services firms, this lack of control can be particularly concerning.

Negative Information Can Be Added

Within weeks or months, editors may add information you’d prefer wasn’t highlighted:

• FINRA sanctions, SEC actions, or state regulatory proceedings
• Customer arbitrations and complaints
• Lawsuits and settlements with clients
• Data breaches or cybersecurity incidents
• Critical coverage of fee structures or business practices
• Advisor departures or management controversies
• Failed product launches or service disruptions

For financial services firms, regulatory disclosures are public record. If FINRA has sanctioned your firm, if the SEC has brought enforcement actions, or if customer complaints appear in BrokerCheck, this information is properly sourced and relevant to your Wikipedia article.

Attempts to remove factual, sourced regulatory information often lead to disputes and can draw more attention to the very issues you’re trying to minimize.

Pages Can Get Protected

When disagreements about content arise, Wikipedia may place protections on the page that limit editing to experienced editors with established track records.

The goal of this protection is to maintain article quality, but it also means you won’t be able to make direct changes.

Content Reflects the Neutral Truth

Editors may create sections addressing various aspects of your firm’s history, including regulatory issues or controversies. They’ll add FINRA actions, SEC enforcement proceedings, arbitration awards, and legal matters that have been covered in reliable sources.

You can discuss concerns on the article’s talk page, but if the information is factually accurate and properly sourced, it typically remains. Wikipedia’s neutrality policy requires presenting all significant viewpoints, not just favorable ones.

Establishing Wikipedia Worthy Levels of Notability

Notability takes time.

A fintech company founded in 2021 will face significant challenges meeting Wikipedia’s standards in 2025. You need years of sustained coverage demonstrating lasting significance. Even firms with strong Series B or C funding and impressive user growth may lack the independent media analysis Wikipedia requires.

A broker-dealer or RIA founded in 1997 has a better chance, but still needs consistent coverage by major media for reasons beyond routine business operations. Managing $5 billion in assets or serving 500 advisors doesn’t automatically translate to Wikipedia notability without substantial independent coverage analyzing your firm’s industry impact.

Many successful financial services firms never meet Wikipedia’s notability threshold. This doesn’t reflect on the quality of your platform, the satisfaction of your advisors, or your growth trajectory. 

Consider that many respected firms with $10B+ AUM, decades of operation, and strong industry reputations don’t have Wikipedia pages. The absence of a Wikipedia page doesn’t prevent them from recruiting advisors, winning clients, or building successful businesses.

When Wikipedia Makes Sense for Your Firm

In these instances, your firm may want to pursue publishing a Wikipedia page: 

• You’re a publicly traded financial services company. Firms listed on major exchanges often have stronger cases for inclusion, though meeting notability standards still requires independent coverage beyond SEC filings and earnings announcements.
• You have consistent major media coverage. If the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, or Financial Times regularly write substantive articles analyzing your firm’s business model, technology innovation, or industry impact, you may qualify.
• You’ve been central to significant industry events. Major acquisitions that reshape the competitive landscape, technology breakthroughs that change advisor workflows, or regulatory developments where your firm played a key role can generate the kind of coverage Wikipedia values.
• You have multiple in-depth profiles. Feature articles in major publications that analyze your firm’s unique approach, growth strategy, or market position strengthen your case. 
• You have an established track record. Decades of operation provide more material for encyclopedic coverage. Firms that have survived multiple market cycles and regulatory environments have more history worth documenting.
• You’re a major custodian or clearing firm. Firms providing critical infrastructure to the industry (Schwab, Fidelity, Pershing) have obvious notability. If you’re in this category, you likely already have a Wikipedia page or clearly qualify for one.

Even in these cases, it’s advisable to let volunteer editors create the page organically. If you’re genuinely notable within financial services, someone familiar with the industry will eventually document it without your involvement.

Making the Right Decision for Your Firm

Financial services firms that maintain successful Wikipedia pages typically became notable first through sustained media coverage analyzing their industry impact, then had their significance documented by independent editors.

• Build the foundation first. Earn media coverage, develop thought leadership pieces, and let notability develop organically through genuine industry impact.
• Keep timing in mind. If you don’t yet have substantial independent coverage from major business and financial publications, it may be too early to try to get a page published. Focus on building the kind of firm that generates that coverage naturally.
• Accept that many successful firms don’t need Wikipedia. Some of the most respected and fastest-growing firms in financial services operate successfully without Wikipedia pages. Focus on marketing channels that directly drive advisor recruitment and client acquisition.
• Consider the potential for regulatory exposure. For broker-dealers and RIAs, remember that a Wikipedia page will likely include public regulatory history. Evaluate whether having that information prominently displayed serves your business development goals.

Your energy and budget may be better invested in strategies that build your firm now, while laying groundwork for potential Wikipedia coverage in the future. 

Working on your 2023 content strategy? Start – and finish – by thinking about your audience.

Follow these five customer-first tips for nailing the what, how, why and where of content creation and distribution. 

Put your content where your audience wants it. Start thinking about your website as an In-N-Out rather than a Target. Your audience isn’t there to browse aimlessly or discover some unexpected treasure in the home goods aisle; they want transactional information quickly. How much does this cost? What does it do? How does it work? Can you serve a business of my size? How do I get in touch with someone?

On social media and other content-specific platforms, like YouTube and Spotify, you have the opportunity to grab their attention unexpectedly with content that speaks to a problem they’re facing, a challenge they can’t figure out, the impact of news or market trends, or a new way to think about how they do their jobs. 

“But SEO” – Okay, publish the educational blog post on your website. But then do more than just link to it on social media. Pull the most important concepts into a text post, a slideshow, a short video, an audiogram or an infographic that they can view right in the feed itself without leaving the platform. 

Thinking this way frees you from the traditional whitepaper and blog shackles and creates new avenues for communicating your message that don’t necessarily translate to your website, including podcasts and videos. 

It also enhances shareability. Your reach on social media, for example, gets exponentially greater when your audience interacts with your content, making it visible to their connections as well, which is impossible to achieve on your website. 

Focus on what you want them to know, not what you want them to do. Shift your top priority from getting your audience to click, like, register, sign up, subscribe, download, or buy, to helping them understand something they didn’t know before. 

Making your message the main attraction and treating the CTA like a nice-to-have changes the kind of content you create to be more about what they need and less about the numbers you need to hit. 

Even if a potential buyer never clicks on your link, if they’re continuously consuming valuable, educational information from your brand, your content is doing its job (and it’s 2023. When they want more information, they know how and where to find you.)

Use your customers’ words. Not just in testimonials and case studies (although you should be doing that too). Use your customers’ words everywhere: In your messaging, in your ads, in your videos and articles, in all the ways you speak about your brand, your product or service and your value. 

They know best how to talk about the work they do, their challenges, and how they use your solution (or a competitor’s solution). 

First and foremost, talk with your customers – regularly – not just about your company, but also about what their days look like outside of what you offer. 

Read your reviews and your competitors’ reviews, not just to inform your product roadmap or upcoming enhancements, but to understand how your audience talks about what you do, and how it helps (or doesn’t help) them.

Spend time where they do. This could be in online communities, at trade shows or virtual events, at seminars, the list goes on. What questions are they asking each other, and how are they phrasing them? Keep a running list or document that you can reference easily.

The words they use should inform the words you use so that when they consume your content, making a connection becomes effortless.

Figure out why your content matters to them. This isn’t the well-worn features vs. benefits argument (both are important, by the way). It’s a question to keep front of mind every time you create a new piece of content: Why does this matter to my audience? If it doesn’t, how can I change that?

Press releases, for example, tend to be largely self-promotional. But you can take a press release, strip it of its traditional jargon, and promote the news yourself (in your audience’s language) in a way that speaks to the impact it will have on them.

Client case studies, too, tend to focus more on the product or solution and less on the actual experience of the client. Shift the frame to make your client the story’s hero so the rest of your audience can more easily see themselves in the outcome. 

Make it actionable. Whether it’s a new way to think about a problem or a practical takeaway they can execute on their own, the majority of your content should enable your audience to learn or do something.

When they put what you’ve taught them into action and it works, you build trust and brand affinity while encouraging word-of-mouth referrals from people who aren’t even your customers yet. 

TL;DR? In 2023, we are: 

• Thinking strategically about what channels to use for content based on what our audience needs and where they want to be.
• Prioritizing content consumption over clicks.
• Eliminating friction in both logistics and language. 
• Putting the audience first.
• Making content that matters.