The Wikipedia sandbox is a drafting workspace, located at User:[username]/sandbox for any registered editor, where article content can be developed without being live in mainspace. The sandbox is where the drafting work actually happens for a new article: the article structure gets built, sources are added inline, the language is tightened to encyclopedic voice, and the content is reviewed before any external eyes see it. From the sandbox, the article can be moved to mainspace directly (faster but bypasses AfC review) or submitted to Articles for Creation for community review before publication. For COI work we work in the sandbox first, refine through internal review, and then submit through AfC with the COI disclosed. The sandbox does not protect against later challenges to the article but it does protect against the workflow problem of editing live and then trying to fix issues in public.

Stubs and full articles are different stages of the same article rather than different types. A stub is a short article, typically under 500 words, that covers the basic facts about the subject – what it is, when it was founded or born, where it is located, what it does or did – and is sourced enough to establish notability but not enough to support a full treatment. Stubs are tagged as stubs and explicitly marked as incomplete, with a maintenance template inviting expansion. A full article is comprehensive: developed sections covering the subject’s history, structure, key activities, and relevant context; multiple sourced sections; conformance to the Wikipedia Manual of Style; and breadth of coverage that matches the substance of the subject. For COI work, starting with a stub is sometimes the right call when the sourcing supports notability but not full development; the article gets created, the entity gets the Knowledge Panel benefit, and the expansion happens over time as more sources accumulate.

Wikipedia has a tiered notability system. The General Notability Guideline applies to all subjects by default: significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. The subject-specific notability guidelines provide alternative paths for specific categories where the source profile is different. Academics have a separate notability guideline that emphasizes citation patterns and academic impact rather than mainstream press coverage. Athletes have one based on competitive level and competition records. Politicians have one based on the level of office. Books, films, and other creative works each have their own. Companies fall under a stricter version of GNG that emphasizes in-depth independent coverage and explicitly excludes routine business announcements. Picking the right guideline at the start changes which sources matter.

Being a private company is not an obstacle to having a Wikipedia article, but it does change the sourcing profile and often raises the bar. Public companies have a built-in source layer through SEC filings, analyst coverage, and routine financial press that establishes basic facts and notability. Private companies have to clear the same notability standard without that scaffolding, which means the third-party coverage has to do more of the work: substantive profiles in major business outlets, in-depth coverage of the company’s products or services, recognition in industry rankings or analyst reports, and where applicable, coverage of significant transactions like funding rounds (which themselves need substantive treatment, not just announcement coverage). For private companies whose coverage is heavy on industry trade publications but thin on mainstream business press, we often recommend a 12-month authority program to broaden the source base before pursuing the article. The path exists; it just requires the right groundwork.

Nonprofits and foundations are eligible for Wikipedia articles on the same terms as other organizations: significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, where the coverage treats the organization substantively rather than mentioning it in passing inside a story about something else. The substantive coverage often takes one of several forms. Coverage of the nonprofit’s work and impact (program outcomes, beneficiaries, on-the-ground reporting). Coverage of its organizational history, governance, or evolution. Investigative reporting, including critical coverage where applicable. Coverage of significant grants given or received, partnerships, or major events. The notability standard does not give nonprofits a discount, but the available source layer is often broader than for similarly sized commercial entities because nonprofit work generates a different kind of editorial coverage.

Brand and product articles are eligible on the same notability terms as company articles, with the added requirement that the coverage has to treat the specific brand or product directly. Coverage of the parent company that mentions the product in passing does not establish notability for a separate product article; the product needs its own substantive coverage. The kinds of coverage that count are recognizable: in-depth product reviews in editorially independent outlets, comparison features that treat the product as a major comparison subject, investigative coverage of recalls or controversies, coverage of significant launches with editorial analysis beyond the announcement, books or academic work that treats the product substantively. For most major consumer products, the right answer is often a section within the parent company article rather than a separate product article, unless the product has accumulated enough independent coverage to support a standalone treatment. We assess this during readiness rather than assuming a separate article is the right structure.

Readiness is the question we have to answer before we recommend pursuing a Wikipedia article: does this subject have the source record to clear the notability bar, and if so, with what likelihood of acceptance. The assessment is a structured review of the existing coverage. We catalog the substantive third-party coverage in reliable secondary sources – in-depth profiles in major newspapers, analytical features in trade publications with editorial standards, books or peer-reviewed work, academic references – and evaluate it against Wikipedia’s specific notability criteria for the subject type (general notability, corporate notability, biographical notability). The output is a readiness call: ready (proceed to drafting), close but not yet (a specific list of gaps that need to be filled before drafting), or not ready (the underlying coverage does not exist and pursuing an article now would result in deletion). Doing this assessment first, with honest gradient, saves clients from the much costlier outcome of trying to create an article that gets nominated for deletion.

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, with each of those four words carrying weight in practice. Five Blocks’s readiness assessment catalogs the existing coverage against this standard. For a corporate subject we look at the depth and number of in-depth pieces in outlets like Bloomberg, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and major trade publications; we discount press releases, wire syndications of company announcements, sponsored content, and self-published material because they do not count toward notability. For an individual we look at substantive coverage of their professional or public activities in similar outlets. The output is a clear call: yes the subject meets the standard, yes but barely (we should reinforce sourcing first), or no the underlying record needs to develop further before an article is viable.

An absence of a Wikipedia article is not always a problem to solve immediately. It depends entirely on whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability standard, and that is a structured question rather than a marketing one. For clients who meet the threshold, we move directly to drafting and submission through the disclosed COI process, with a careful sourcing plan and the expectation that the article will face routine community review. For clients who do not yet meet the threshold, the recommendation is not to push for an article through procedural channels – that produces deletions, not articles – but to build the underlying coverage first through a substantive press and authority program. The work runs 12 to 18 months for borderline cases and shorter for cases that are close to the line. Once the source record supports the article, the drafting becomes straightforward. The order matters: source-record first, article second.

Building notability is a press and authority program, not a Wikipedia program. The pieces need to be about the subject – not quoting the subject inside an unrelated story, not press releases syndicated through wire services, not sponsored content. Industry recognition (awards from established bodies, inclusion in authoritative rankings or analyst reports) counts where it is independent and editorially generated. Academic or research coverage counts where the subject is treated substantively. The cadence and quality matter: a single piece in a top outlet is rarely sufficient for a borderline case; the community looks for sustained coverage over time that establishes the subject as substantively important enough to merit encyclopedic treatment. Twelve to eighteen months is typical for borderline subjects, often longer for subjects who start from a thin base.