Wikipedia gap finder
Find out whether a topic has a dedicated Wikipedia article, or only mentions, a Wikidata item, or nothing. A coverage check for AI-search research, not a ranking prediction.
Queries the public English Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia page-view APIs from your browser.
Near-matches and articles that mention it
A gap is not an invitation to write your own article. See the notability and conflict-of-interest notes below.
4 steps, no signup
- 01
Enter a topic
Type a brand, person, product category or concept exactly as people would search it, for example
Ahrefsorquery fan-out. - 02
Read the verdict
The tool checks English Wikipedia for a dedicated article, redirects, near-matches and mentions inside other articles, plus the Wikidata item.
- 03
Check coverage depth
For an existing article you see how many language editions cover it and its monthly page views.
- 04
Decide what to do
A gap is not a to-do item for Wikipedia. Read the notability and conflict-of-interest notes before touching anything.
How do I check if a topic has a Wikipedia article?
Type the brand, person or topic above. The finder asks English Wikipedia for an exact article, then checks Wikidata, counts how many other articles mention the phrase, lists other language editions and shows recent page views. A missing article is a gap. It isn't permission to write one yourself: Wikipedia's notability and conflict-of-interest rules, covered below, still apply.
What this tool checks
The Wikipedia gap finder answers one narrow question: does a topic have its own English Wikipedia article? It looks for an exact title or redirect, lists near-matching titles, counts English articles that mention the exact phrase, finds the Wikidata item, and, when an article exists, shows how many language editions cover it and how many views it got over the last twelve months.
It uses the same threshold as this site's ChatGPT Wikipedia dependency study: a passing mention inside a broader article is not coverage. Only a dedicated article counts.
Why Wikipedia coverage is a useful proxy, and what it does not prove
Vendor-reported data from Profound puts about 47.9% of ChatGPT's top citations on Wikipedia and similarly encyclopedic sources. This site grades that figure partial: the vendor's corpus cannot be inspected and its query mix is undisclosed. The ChatGPT citation statistics page traces it.
That share describes topics Wikipedia already covers well. Two things remain Open: whether the skew reflects a built-in preference or simply the properties Wikipedia has (broad, neutral, stable URLs), and what wins the citation on topics Wikipedia does not cover. So read results carefully:
- An article existing does not mean ChatGPT will cite it for your query.
- A gap does not mean AI engines will ignore your topic. Something else fills it, and nobody has published what.
- Nothing here shows that creating an article causes citations.
How the results are worked out
| Row | Source | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Dedicated article | Wikipedia API, exact title with redirects followed | Yes, redirect, disambiguation page, or none |
| Near-matches | Wikipedia title search | Similar titles, which may be the same entity under another name |
| Mentions | Wikipedia full-text search for the exact phrase | Articles whose text contains it |
| Wikidata item | The article's linked item, or a Wikidata label search | Structured-data entry, which can exist without an article |
| Languages | Interlanguage links | How many other editions have an article |
| Page views | Wikimedia pageviews API, user traffic, last 12 full months | Human interest in the article, not AI usage |
Notability: why most brands should not have an article
Wikipedia includes a subject only if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. That is the general notability guideline. Companies face the stricter organizations and companies guideline, and people the people guideline. Press releases, funding announcements, your own blog and paid placements do not count. Content must also follow the neutral point of view policy, which rules out promotional writing.
Conflict of interest: do not write your own article
Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline strongly discourages editing articles about yourself, your employer, your clients or your products. If you are paid, the paid-contribution disclosure rules are part of the Wikimedia Terms of Use, and breaking them can get accounts blocked. Self-written brand articles tend to be nominated for deletion, and the deletion discussion stays public and searchable.
If you have a real connection and think an article is wrong or missing something, the accepted routes are a suggestion on the article's talk page with independent sources, or Articles for Creation with your conflict disclosed. Editing the encyclopedia to win AI citations is a bad-faith use of a public resource. The dependency study suggests a better plan for most brands: become the best source on topics Wikipedia does not cover.
What to do with a gap
- Treat it as a research finding, not a task. Note which of your topics are gaps and which are covered.
- Write the reference page yourself, on your own site: neutral, structured, sourced, stable URL.
- Earn independent coverage. It is what notability requires, and it is useful whether or not an article ever exists.
- Re-check periodically. Articles get created and deleted.
Troubleshooting
| What you see | Why | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Wrong entity matched | Shared names | Add a qualifier, e.g. "Mercury (planet)" |
| Disambiguation page | Several subjects share the title | Check the near-matches for yours |
| No page views shown | New article or API delay | Try again later |
| Error message | Wikimedia API busy or blocked by an extension | Retry, or disable content blockers |
Related tools
To see whether a page you control is set up to be quoted, run the citation readiness checker. To check which advice about AI citations has evidence behind it, use the GEO tactic evidence lookup.
Privacy
Your query goes straight from your browser to Wikimedia's public APIs, under Wikimedia's privacy policy. This site sees nothing and stores nothing.
Last checked and updated: . Everything on this page runs in your browser; nothing you enter is sent anywhere.