Frequently Asked Questions

In Wikipedia terms, 'notable' means the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It's not about being successful, famous, or important. It's specifically about documentation. A CEO making $10 million per year isn't automatically notable. A CEO who's been profiled in major business publications is. The coverage establishes notability, not the achievements themselves.

Search for your name in news archives, trade publications, and academic databases. Look for substantial coverage (not just mentions) from sources you didn't pay for or create yourself. If you can find 3-5 in-depth articles from independent publications, you likely qualify. If all you find are press releases and your own website, you probably don't yet.

Size doesn't determine notability. A small business with significant media coverage can have a page. A Fortune 500 company with no independent coverage might not qualify. The question is whether reliable sources have written about the business substantially and independently. Local businesses rarely qualify unless they're historically significant or have received unusual media attention.

Wikipedia requires documentation of notability, not just the notability itself. Being respected in your industry isn't enough. The question is whether reliable sources have documented that respect. Colleagues knowing you're important doesn't count. Articles in recognized publications about why you're important does count.

Reliable sources have editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, and reputations to protect. Major newspapers, established trade publications, academic journals, and recognized news outlets count. Press releases, company websites, blogs without editorial standards, and pay-to-play publications don't count. The source must be independent from the subject.

Follower counts alone don't establish Wikipedia notability. What matters is whether reliable sources have written about you. A creator with 10 million followers but no press coverage might not qualify. A creator with 500,000 followers who's been profiled in Forbes might. The media coverage matters, not the platform metrics.

DIY is free but has high failure rates. Professional services typically charge $2,500-$7,500 for individual/company pages. Factors affecting cost: research complexity, writing time, and review navigation. Cheaper services often cut corners that result in deletion. The real question is cost per successful, lasting page.

Typically 6-12 weeks from start to publication. The breakdown: research (1-2 weeks), writing (2-3 weeks), client review (1 week), submission and review queue (4-8 weeks). The main variable is Wikipedia's volunteer review queue, which can't be rushed.

Technically yes, but Wikipedia strongly discourages it. Self-created pages face immediate scrutiny for conflict of interest. Even if your content is accurate, the COI issue often leads to deletion. The recommended approach is to suggest content on talk pages and let independent editors decide. Or hire professionals who properly disclose the relationship.

Rejections include feedback explaining what's wrong. Common issues: insufficient notability evidence, promotional tone, or poor sourcing. You can revise and resubmit. If the fundamental issue is notability (not enough coverage exists), you may need to wait until more coverage develops before trying again.

You can, but you must disclose the conflict of interest and follow Wikipedia's paid editing policy. The recommended approach: draft content in your sandbox, post it to the article's talk page, and request independent editors review and implement if appropriate. Direct editing without disclosure often backfires badly.

No. Wikipedia doesn't seek permission from subjects. Pages can be created by anyone with knowledge and sources. If a page about you exists, you can request corrections through proper channels, but you don't have veto power over its existence or content.

You can, but Wikipedia strongly discourages it due to conflict of interest. If you do edit, you must disclose the COI on your user page and the article's talk page. The safer approach: request changes on the talk page and let independent editors decide whether to implement them.

Small factual errors (wrong date, misspelled name): edit directly with a source, noting the correction. Larger changes or anything contentious: post on the article's talk page explaining the error and providing sources. If you have a conflict of interest, disclose it and request corrections rather than editing directly.

Only if it's inaccurate, unsourced, or violates Wikipedia policies. If reliable sources have covered negative information, Wikipedia will likely include it. You can ensure accuracy and context, but you can't remove true, well-sourced information just because it's unflattering. Wikipedia aims for balanced coverage, not promotional content.

Common reasons: conflict of interest (real or perceived), promotional tone, poor or missing sources, or content that experienced editors consider inappropriate. Check the edit summary for why it was reverted. If you have a COI, disclose it and use talk pages instead of direct editing.

Find a reliable source supporting the information. Edit the article, add the content with a citation in Wikipedia's format. For controversial additions or if you have a COI, propose the addition on the talk page first. Be prepared for other editors to modify or remove your additions.

Common reasons: notability not established (insufficient independent sources), promotional content, conflict of interest editing, poor sourcing, or resemblance to advertising. Check the deletion log for the specific reason. Understanding why helps if you want to try recreating the page after addressing the issues.

Sometimes. Options include: Deletion Review (for procedural errors), recreation with substantially improved content and sourcing, or appeal if circumstances have changed (new coverage exists). Simply recreating a deleted page without addressing the original problems usually results in speedy deletion.

Strong sourcing is key. Every significant claim should cite reliable, independent sources. Maintain neutral tone. Avoid promotional language. Include balanced content (not just achievements). Monitor the page regularly for warning tags. Address concerns raised on the talk page before they escalate to deletion discussions.

Speedy deletion is immediate, no discussion, for clear-cut violations (blatant advertising, no sources at all). Articles for Deletion (AfD) involves a 7-day community discussion for borderline cases. AfD gives you time to respond and improve the article. Speedy deletion doesn't.

Participate in discussions (with COI disclosure if applicable). Focus on policy arguments, not emotional appeals. Provide additional sources. If you believe there's harassment, report it to Wikipedia administrators. Don't edit war. If the page survives deletion discussions, future attempts need new arguments.

Consider it if: you're confident you're notable but don't want to learn Wikipedia's complex processes, or previous DIY attempts failed. Don't hire if: you're not actually notable (no amount of professional help creates coverage that doesn't exist). The right service can navigate Wikipedia effectively; they can't create notability from nothing.

Look for: transparency about their process, willingness to disclose the paid relationship per Wikipedia policy, honest assessment of your notability, no guarantees of specific content or outcomes, and realistic timelines. Avoid: promises to 'guarantee' publication, claims of secret methods, refusal to disclose their Wikipedia accounts, or unusually cheap prices.

Yes, but it must be disclosed per Wikipedia's terms of use. Paid editing without disclosure violates Wikipedia policy and can result in account bans and article deletion. FTC regulations also require disclosure of paid endorsements, which may apply to Wikipedia content in some cases.

Realistic expectations: thorough notability assessment, professional encyclopedic writing, submission through proper channels with disclosure, navigation of the review process, and reasonable guarantees. Unrealistic expectations: control over final content, guaranteed approval, removal of accurate negative information, or instant publication.

Common guarantees: refund or rework if the page is deleted within 90 days for reasons within the service's control (poor writing, bad sourcing). No service can guarantee against: Wikipedia policy changes, new information affecting notability, or editor consensus disagreements. Be wary of overly broad guarantees.