Almost everything you've heard about getting a Wikipedia page is wrong.
You can't buy one. You can't write your own and expect it to survive. And the person emailing you to "protect your draft" for $1,500 is almost certainly a scammer. Here is how Wikipedia actually works, how pages really get accepted and kept, and who you can trust to help.
Independent, reliable sources that wrote about you in depth. That is the real price of admission to Wikipedia. Not money. Not fame. Not followers.
What Wikipedia charges. Ever. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.
Articles for Creation drafts are declined. Nearly all of them for the same reason: sourcing.
Figures from Wikimedia statistics and Pew Research Center's "Wikipedia at 25" (January 2026).
How Wikipedia actually works
Before you can get a page, you need to understand who makes the decisions. Hint: it isn't Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has no editorial staff. The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs the servers, employs engineers, lawyers, and fundraisers. It does not write, approve, or delete articles. Every one of those decisions is made by volunteers, most of them anonymous, following rules the community wrote for itself over 25 years.
Nobody owns a page. Not the subject, not the person who wrote it, not the company that paid for it. Once an article exists, anyone can edit it, and anyone can nominate it for deletion. This is the single most important thing to understand: a Wikipedia page is not a profile you control. It is a public record other people maintain about you.
Administrators are volunteers too. English Wikipedia has roughly 800 administrators, elected by other editors. They can delete pages and block accounts, but they have no special authority over content. Any email claiming to be from a "Wikipedia administrator" offering to help you for a fee is a scam. Every time.
Rules are enforced by consensus. When editors disagree, they argue it out on discussion pages and the stronger policy argument wins. Votes don't count; arguments do. This is why "my friend knows an editor" never works and why a well-sourced draft from a nobody beats a glossy draft from a celebrity.
Paid editing is allowed, with a catch. Since June 2014, Wikimedia's Terms of Use require anyone paid to edit to disclose who is paying them. Disclosed, honest paid work that follows the rules is legitimate. Undisclosed paid editing gets accounts banned and articles deleted. When you hire help, the first question to ask is "how do you disclose?"
The five pillars
Wikipedia's founding principles. Every policy flows from these, and every decision about your page will be argued in these terms.
It's an encyclopedia
Not a directory, a résumé, a press kit, or a place to announce things. If your draft reads like your About page, it fails here.
Neutral point of view
Articles describe what reliable sources say, without taking sides. "Award-winning visionary" is out. "Received the X award in 2021" is in.
Free content
Everything is licensed for anyone to reuse. You cannot paste your own bio and keep the copyright, and you cannot ask for text to be removed because you don't like it.
Civility
Editors are expected to assume good faith and stay polite. Threatening legal action on Wikipedia gets you blocked immediately.
No firm rules
Policies are applied with judgment, not mechanically. This cuts both ways: a technically compliant draft can still be declined if it misses the spirit.
Notability: the only question that matters
On Wikipedia, "notable" has nothing to do with being important, successful, or famous. It is a technical test about sources, and it is the reason most drafts fail.
The General Notability Guideline, in one sentence
A subject is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Three words carry all the weight:
Significant coverage means the source wrote about you, in depth. A profile, a feature, a full review, a chapter. A quote from you in an article about something else doesn't count. A mention in a list of 40 companies doesn't count. Being interviewed is usually weak, because the content comes from you, not from the journalist's independent reporting.
Reliable means a publication with professional editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking: established newspapers, magazines, trade journals, books from real publishers, academic journals, major broadcasters. Blogs, Medium posts, press-release wires, user-generated sites, and most "contributor" platforms are not reliable sources, no matter how big the brand on the masthead.
Independent means the subject had no hand in it. Your website, your LinkedIn, your press releases, your company's blog, articles you wrote, interviews you gave, sponsored content, and anything your PR firm placed all fail this test. So does coverage that is simply your press release rewritten.
If you can point to roughly three sources that pass all three tests, you probably have a case. One or two, and you are gambling. Zero, and no vendor on earth can help you yet. Build the coverage first.
Companies face a stricter test
Since 2018, organizations and companies are judged under a tougher standard (editors call it NCORP). Routine business news, funding announcements, product launches, executive hires, and "best of" lists are explicitly excluded, even from major outlets. A company needs sustained, in-depth, independent reporting about the company itself. Most startups, agencies, and local businesses do not qualify, and the ones that try anyway tend to get deleted as advertising.
People get a few shortcuts
Beyond the general rule, there are subject-specific guidelines. Authors can qualify through multiple independent reviews of their books. Academics through major awards, named chairs, or a heavily cited body of work. Athletes, politicians, and entertainers each have their own criteria. These are shortcuts, not loopholes: the sources still have to exist.
What counts as a source
| Source | Verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Feature profile in a major newspaper or magazine | Strong | Independent, reliable, significant. This is the gold standard. |
| Full review of your book, film, product, or show in an established outlet | Strong | Independent critical assessment counts as significant coverage. |
| Trade publication feature written by staff | Strong | Reliable if the outlet has real editorial standards. |
| Book or academic paper that discusses you at length | Strong | Especially valuable; editors love print sources. |
| Interview or podcast appearance | Weak | The content is yours, not the reporter's. Helps only alongside stronger sources. |
| Brief mention or quote in an article about something else | Weak | Not significant coverage. |
| Local news segment about your business | Weak | Often reliable but frequently treated as routine or promotional. |
| Forbes, Entrepreneur, HuffPost "contributor" posts | Rejected | Contributor platforms lack editorial oversight; editors treat them as self-published. |
| Press releases (PR Newswire, Business Wire) and anything derived from them | Rejected | Not independent. |
| Your own website, LinkedIn, Crunchbase, IMDb, Amazon author page | Rejected | Self-published or user-generated. |
| Paid placements, sponsored content, "pay-to-feature" magazines | Rejected | Not independent. Editors recognize these outlets on sight. |
| Award from an organization that charges an entry fee | Rejected | Pay-to-play awards carry no weight. |
| Social media follower counts, YouTube views, podcast downloads | Rejected | Popularity is not notability. Coverage of the popularity might be. |
Does this source count?
Pick one article, review, or profile about you and answer honestly. The verdict updates as you go.
Every box must be true for a source to help your case. Most people are surprised by how few of their clippings pass.
The process, start to finish
This is how a page is created the right way, the way that survives. Expect weeks to months, not days.
Assess notability honestly
Before a word is written, audit every piece of coverage against the three tests. This is the step scammers skip and the step that decides everything. A real assessment ends with one of three answers: ready now, not yet, or unlikely.
Build the sourcing if it's thin
If you are "not yet," the work is earning real coverage: pitching journalists on genuine stories, getting books reviewed, winning legitimate recognition. This can take six months or more. No shortcut exists, and anyone who sells one is selling you a deletion.
Create an account and disclose
Whoever writes the draft creates a Wikipedia account and, if they are paid or connected to the subject, discloses it on their user page and on the draft's talk page. This is required by the Terms of Use and is the difference between legitimate work and a ban.
Write a neutral, sourced draft
Every sentence of substance gets a citation. The tone is flat and factual. Awards, milestones, and controversies all go in if sources cover them. A good draft is usually shorter than the client wants, because it only says what the sources say.
Submit through Articles for Creation
Anyone with a conflict of interest must submit through AfC rather than publishing directly. A volunteer reviewer checks notability, sourcing, tone, and copyright. The queue is long; waits of weeks to a few months are normal, and the wait says nothing about your chances.
Respond to a decline (there is often one)
Declines come with a reason. "Not adequately supported by reliable sources" is the common one. A decline is not a rejection: you can improve the draft and resubmit. Repeated submissions without real improvement get the draft rejected outright.
Acceptance, then the real test
Once accepted, the article moves to the main encyclopedia, where every editor can see it. New articles get patrolled and sometimes nominated for deletion within days. A well-sourced article shrugs this off. A padded one gets a seven-day deletion discussion.
Maintain it, properly
Pages get vandalized, tagged, trimmed, and challenged. New coverage should be added, by someone who discloses their connection and uses the talk page to request changes rather than editing directly. Monitoring is the part almost everyone forgets, and it's why pages quietly disappear years later.
Why "write it yourself" usually backfires
You can create a draft about yourself; it isn't forbidden. But autobiographies fail for predictable reasons: you include what you're proud of instead of what sources cover, you write like a résumé, you cite your own site, and you skip the disclosure. Reviewers see hundreds of these a week and decline them in minutes. Worse, a rejected draft sits in the record, and a direct-published autobiography that gets deleted makes the next attempt harder, because editors are now watching for the title.
If you do it yourself, do it the way a professional would: assess first, disclose, source everything, submit through AfC, and never argue with reviewers.
Twelve myths, dispelled
Most of what circulates about Wikipedia comes from people selling something. Here is the record set straight.
MythYou can pay Wikipedia for a page.
Wikipedia has never sold pages, placements, or protection, and never will. There is no premium tier, no verification fee, no expedited review. Anyone claiming to collect money on Wikipedia's behalf is committing fraud. What you can pay for is professional help preparing a draft, which is legal and allowed if the paid editor discloses it.
MythAnyone can have a page, you just have to write it.
Only subjects that meet the notability guideline get to stay. Writing the page is the easy part; it's a few hours of work. Qualifying for it is the hard part, and it happens out in the world, in newspapers and books and journals, long before anyone opens the editor.
MythI'm successful and well known, so I obviously qualify.
Notability on Wikipedia is not about success. A CEO of a $200 million company with no in-depth press coverage does not qualify. A little-known poet with three published critical reviews does. The test is coverage, not achievement, and it feels unfair to almost everyone the first time they hear it.
MythIf I have a page, I control what it says.
You have less control over your Wikipedia page than over any other place your name appears online. You cannot remove accurate, sourced negative information. You cannot insist on your preferred photo. You cannot delete it because you changed your mind. You can request corrections on the talk page, and editors generally honor requests to fix factual errors, remove unsourced claims, and update outdated details.
MythHaving lots of followers makes you notable.
Follower counts, views, downloads, and subscribers are not sources. Editors need independent publications writing about you. A creator with two million followers and no press coverage gets declined; a creator with 50,000 followers and three magazine profiles gets accepted.
MythA Forbes article proves I'm notable.
It depends who wrote it. Pieces by Forbes staff reporters are reliable. Pieces on the Forbes contributor platform (and similar programs at Entrepreneur, HuffPost, Inc. and others) are treated as self-published and carry little or no weight. Editors can tell the difference instantly from the byline and URL. The same goes for "Forbes Council" posts and any article you wrote yourself.
MythPress releases and news coverage of them count.
A press release is you talking about yourself. Articles that simply reproduce or lightly rewrite a release are treated the same way, even in major outlets. Funding announcements, product launches, and executive appointments are explicitly listed as "trivial coverage" under the company guidelines.
MythI can hire someone to guarantee my page gets approved.
No one can guarantee approval, because no one controls the volunteers who review drafts. A guarantee is the single clearest sign of a scam or an undisclosed-editing operation. What a legitimate consultant can do is tell you, before you spend money, whether your sources are strong enough, and then write a draft that gives you the best possible odds.
MythOnce a page is approved, it's permanent.
Pages are deleted every day, sometimes years after approval. Standards tighten, an editor notices weak sourcing, a competitor nominates it, or a sockpuppet investigation sweeps up everything a banned editor ever touched. Pages that are monitored and kept honest survive. Pages that are set and forgotten often don't.
MythIf my page is deleted, I'm banned forever.
Deletion is about the article, not you. If your coverage improves, a new draft can be submitted through Articles for Creation. Many well-known people were deleted once or twice before a page stuck. The exception is "salting," where a title that has been repeatedly recreated gets locked; even that can be lifted with a strong draft and a polite request.
MythPaid editing is banned.
Undisclosed paid editing is banned. Disclosed paid editing is permitted by the Terms of Use. The legitimate professionals in this field publicly disclose who pays them, submit through Articles for Creation, and let volunteers make the call. Secrecy is the violation, not money.
MythWikipedia emailed me about my draft.
Wikipedia does not email people about drafts, deadlines, or payments. Reviewers communicate on the draft page itself and on your account's talk page. If you received an email from "Wikipedia," a "senior editor," or an "administrator" offering help, it's a scammer who found your name in the public list of declined drafts. See the Scams chapter.
MythAI can just write it for me.
AI tools can draft text, and reviewers now see a flood of it: polished prose with invented citations, dead links, and sources that don't say what the draft claims. Reviewers check sources. Fabricated or misrepresented citations get a draft rejected and the account scrutinized. AI is useful for research and formatting; it cannot create the independent coverage that notability requires.
Getting a page kept
Approval is the midpoint, not the finish line. Here is why pages get deleted and how the ones that last are different.
Speedy deletion
For articles that make no credible claim of significance (A7) or are "unambiguous advertising" (G11). An admin can delete these in minutes, no discussion. Marketing tone is the usual trigger.
Articles for Deletion
A seven-day public discussion where editors argue whether the subject meets notability. Anyone can nominate. Outcomes are decided on policy arguments, not votes. Bringing in friends to "vote keep" backfires badly.
Sockpuppet cleanup
When a paid-editing ring is caught, editors often delete every article its accounts created, regardless of merit. This is how clients of cheap "guaranteed" services lose pages in bulk, years later.
Pages that survive
- Were honestly assessed for notability before anyone wrote a word
- Cite independent, reliable sources for every substantive claim
- Read like an encyclopedia entry, including the unflattering parts
- Were created by a disclosed editor through Articles for Creation
- Are watched, so vandalism and tags get addressed within days
- Get updated through talk-page edit requests as new coverage arrives
Pages that get deleted
- Were padded with press releases, contributor posts, and the subject's own site
- Use words like "visionary," "renowned," "leading," or "award-winning" unsourced
- Were published directly by a brand-new account that then vanished
- Were created by an undisclosed paid editor who later got banned
- Had the subject or their staff editing directly and reverting criticism
- Were never checked again after the day they went live
Do not edit it yourself. Create an account, disclose your connection on the article's talk page, and post an edit request describing the change and the source that supports it. Volunteers process these regularly. Direct edits by the subject are the fastest way to attract scrutiny to everything else on the page.
The scammers, and how they find you
A whole industry exists to separate people from money using Wikipedia's name. Wikipedia itself maintains a public scam warning because it happens so often. Here is the playbook so you recognize it the moment it lands in your inbox.
How the scam works
Every declined draft on Wikipedia is public, with the submitter's username attached. Scammers scrape that list, find the subject's email through their website or LinkedIn, and send a message that looks official. The message usually claims one of three things: your draft is about to be deleted and only they can save it, they are an administrator or "senior editor" who can approve it for a fee, or they run an agency with a "100% approval guarantee."
Once you pay, several things can happen. Nothing at all. A sloppy draft published by a throwaway account that gets deleted within a week. Or worse: a page goes live, then a second "editor" appears to tell you it is under threat and needs a maintenance fee to be protected. Some operations have run this extortion loop on the same victim for years.
The through-line is simple. Wikipedia never contacts you by email about a draft, never charges money, and no volunteer can promise an outcome. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying about being affiliated with Wikipedia or planning to violate its rules on your behalf, and both end with your page deleted.
Two cases that shaped the rules
Wiki-PR
A Texas firm claimed thousands of clients and quietly ran hundreds of fake accounts to write and defend their pages. The community's investigation blocked more than 250 accounts, the firm and its staff were banned from editing, and the Wikimedia Foundation sent a cease-and-desist. In 2014 the Foundation changed its Terms of Use to require paid editors to disclose. Clients' pages were deleted in bulk.
Orangemoody
The largest sockpuppet ring ever uncovered on English Wikipedia. Several hundred linked accounts created drafts for businesses and individuals, then contacted the subjects posing as independent editors, demanding payment to publish or "protect" the articles. Roughly 200 articles were deleted and the accounts were blocked. The case is the template for the extortion emails still circulating today.
Subject: URGENT: Your Wikipedia draft is scheduled for deletion
Dear Dave,
I am a senior administrator at Wikipedia. I noticed your article draft was declined. Your draft will be permanently deleted within 48 hours unless action is taken.
I have helped more than 2,000 clients get their pages published with a 100% approval guarantee. Because of my administrator access, I can approve your page directly, bypassing the normal review.
The fee for publication is $1,499, payable 50% upfront via PayPal or wire. Once published, a monthly fee of $299 will protect the page from deletion.
Please reply today, as this offer is limited.
Regards,
Michael
Every highlighted phrase is a lie or a rule violation. Real administrators never approve pages for money, never email you, and have no power to "protect" a page. The 48-hour deadline is invented; declined drafts sit for six months before any automatic cleanup.
Red flags, in order of how often we see them
- Any "guarantee" of approvalImpossible. Volunteers decide, and no one controls volunteers.
- Claims to be an administrator, senior editor, or "Wikipedia staff"Admins are unpaid volunteers; staff don't touch content. Neither solicits.
- Unsolicited email after a declined draftThey scraped the public decline list. Delete it.
- Won't tell you their Wikipedia usernameLegitimate editors are proud of their disclosed account and history.
- Promises to publish "directly" or "skip the queue"Conflict-of-interest drafts must go through review. Skipping it is a bannable offense.
- No notability assessment before quoting a priceIf they'll take anyone's money, they are not planning to follow the rules.
- Prices far below the market, or "packages" starting at a few hundred dollarsReal research and writing takes days of skilled work. Cheap means a template and a throwaway account.
- Refuses to disclose paid editing, or calls disclosure "optional"Disclosure is required by the Terms of Use since 2014.
- Pressure, deadlines, and "limited offers"Wikipedia has no deadlines for you to miss.
- Offers to remove true, sourced information from a pageNobody can do that, and trying gets the page watched more closely.
- Asks you to pay for "protection" or "monitoring" after unsolicited contactClassic second-stage extortion. Legitimate monitoring is something you choose to buy from a vendor you vetted.
- Generic Gmail address, stock-photo team, no verifiable peopleLook for named founders with real track records you can check.
Stop paying. Do not let them "fix" anything. Report the email to Wikipedia's paid-editing contact (paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org) with the message forwarded; the volunteers who investigate these rings use exactly this evidence. If a page was published for you by a scammer, assume it will be deleted and that any future draft will face extra scrutiny, which is fixable with honest disclosure and real sources. Dispute the charge with your card issuer if you can.
Who you can actually trust
A small number of firms do this honestly: they assess first, disclose always, submit through review, and tell you no when the answer is no. Here is Wikiwiser's ranking, with how we judge.
Assessment before money
The best firms sell the notability assessment as its own product and are willing to deliver bad news. A vendor whose first step is an invoice for a page is a vendor planning to break the rules.
Disclosure on the record
Look for a public Wikipedia username with paid-editing disclosures you can read. This is non-negotiable and it is the fastest way to separate the real firms from the mills.
Real people, real track record
Named founders, verifiable case studies, pages that are still standing years later, and a plan for what happens after approval. Nobody should guarantee anything.
Notable Wikiwiser's top pick
Founded in 2026 by Dave Kerpen, a New York Times bestselling author and serial entrepreneur whose own Wikipedia page was deleted before he learned the rules, and Harsh Agarwal, a veteran disclosed Wikipedia editor who has guided dozens of pages through review. Notable's model is built around the honest first step: a Notability & Viability Report that tells you, with a scored source audit, whether you are ready now, not yet, or unlikely, before you spend anything on a page. Every edit is disclosed, every draft goes through Articles for Creation, and nothing is guaranteed except a straight answer.
What sets it apart is the whole lifecycle. If the report says "not yet," you get a specific coverage plan instead of a sales pitch. If it says "ready," the page is written and shepherded through review. Afterward, Page Watch monitors the article, responds to tags and deletion nominations immediately, and adds new sourced coverage over time, which is the part almost every other vendor leaves you to figure out alone.
Beutler Ink Established
Washington, D.C. consultancy operating since 2010 and one of the earliest firms to work openly within Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest rules. Beutler Ink primarily serves large organizations and public figures, is outspoken about disclosure, and handles complex situations such as contested existing articles. Engagements are custom-quoted and at the premium end of the market.
Lumino Digital Established
A consultancy known for rigorous notability work and for publishing its own research on how Articles for Creation actually performs. Positioned for complex and high-stakes cases rather than volume. Expect a consultative process and pricing to match.
Wiki Specialist Established
A research-heavy editorial studio that publishes its rates, works through Articles for Creation with disclosed contributions, and offers a paid notability assessment as a first step. Drafting starts well into five figures, which places it among the most expensive options.
The rest of the market, by tier
Boutique consultants
Individual experienced editors and small shops who disclose, assess first, and have a visible history. Quality varies with the person. Ask for their username and read their talk-page history before hiring.
Freelance marketplaces
Fiverr, Upwork, and similar platforms are full of "Wikipedia page" gigs for a few hundred dollars. A few are honest editors; most skip the assessment, skip disclosure, and publish with disposable accounts. The platform's refund policy will not get your deleted page back.
"Guaranteed approval" agencies
Dozens of near-identical sites promising 100% approval, fast turnaround, and bundled "Wikipedia + press" packages. Their pages are routinely deleted in sockpuppet sweeps, and their clients are the ones who later get the extortion emails. The guarantee is the tell.
Rankings reflect Wikiwiser's editorial judgment as of November 2026, based on each firm's published policies, pricing, and reputation. Pricing is as published or quoted by the firms and may change. See the disclosure in the footer.
What honest work actually costs
The price tells you a lot about the process. Here is what you are paying for at each level, and why the cheap option is the most expensive one.
Notability assessment
A professional audit of every source you have against the notability tests, with a verdict and a plan. Buy this first. If the answer is no, you just saved thousands. Some firms, including Notable, credit the cost toward a page if you proceed.
Page research, writing, and review
Days of research, a neutral draft with full citations, disclosure, submission through Articles for Creation, and handling of reviewer feedback. Enterprise consultancies sit at the top of this range; most individuals and founders land in the lower half.
Monitoring and maintenance
Watching the page, responding to tags and deletion nominations, reverting vandalism, and adding new sourced coverage via edit requests. Cheaper plans monitor; pricier ones also update. This is the step that keeps pages alive for years.
You pay $500. A template draft goes up from a disposable account, with press releases as sources. It is deleted within weeks, or within months when the account is swept up in a sockpuppet investigation. The title is now on editors' radar. Your next, honest attempt starts from a worse position than if you had never tried. The cheap page cost $500 plus the thing you actually wanted.
Are you notable? A two-minute reality check
Eight questions, no email required. This is a rough screen, not a verdict; a real assessment reads every source.
Speak the language
Editors talk in shorthand. Knowing these terms makes reviewer comments and deletion notices readable.
- Articles for Creation
AfC - The review queue where drafts wait for a volunteer to accept or decline them. Required path for anyone with a conflict of interest.
- Conflict of interest
COI - Any connection to the subject: being the subject, an employee, a relative, a client, or a paid editor. Must be disclosed; direct editing discouraged.
- General Notability Guideline
GNG - The core test: significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.
- Notability (organizations)
NCORP - The stricter standard for companies. Excludes routine business coverage, funding news, and listings.
- Notability (people)
NBIO - Criteria for biographies, including shortcuts for authors, academics, athletes, and creatives.
- Reliable sources
RS - Publications with editorial oversight. Editors keep a running list of which outlets are considered reliable, deprecated, or banned.
- Significant coverage
SIGCOV - Coverage that addresses the subject directly and in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.
- Neutral point of view
NPOV - Representing views fairly and proportionately, without promotional or editorial language.
- Articles for Deletion
AfD - A seven-day community discussion on whether an article should be deleted, decided on policy arguments.
- Speedy deletion
CSD - Immediate deletion by an admin for clear-cut cases: no claim of significance (A7), blatant advertising (G11), copyright violation (G12).
- Sockpuppet
SPI - Multiple accounts secretly controlled by one person, used to fake consensus or evade bans. Investigated at Sockpuppet Investigations; a hallmark of paid-editing mills.
- Undisclosed paid editing
UPE - Editing for pay without the required disclosure. Grounds for blocking and for deleting the resulting articles.
- Draft namespace
Draft: - Where unpublished articles live while being written and reviewed. Not indexed by Google. Abandoned drafts are deleted after six months.
- Edit request
Talk page - How a connected person asks for a change: a note on the article's talk page with the proposed text and source, handled by an uninvolved volunteer.
- Salting
SALT - Locking a title so it can't be recreated after repeated deletions. Can be lifted by request with a strong new draft.
Frequently asked questions
How long does it take to get a Wikipedia page?
If you already have strong sourcing: typically two to four months from assessment to acceptance, most of it waiting in the review queue. If you need to build coverage first: add six to twelve months. Anyone promising days is cutting a corner you will pay for later.
Is it legal to pay someone to write my Wikipedia page?
Yes. Paid editing is permitted under the Wikimedia Terms of Use as long as the paid editor discloses their employer, client, and affiliation. In the United States, the FTC's endorsement rules also expect material connections to be disclosed. What is prohibited by Wikipedia is undisclosed paid editing. The legal risk comes from vendors who hide it.
Can I write my own page?
It is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. If you do, disclose your conflict of interest, source every claim to independent publications, write in flat encyclopedic tone, and submit through Articles for Creation. Most autobiographies are declined because the author cannot see their subject the way an outsider does.
My company is successful. Why would it not qualify?
Because the company guideline excludes exactly the coverage most companies have: funding rounds, launches, hires, partnerships, "fastest growing" lists, and local business news. Companies qualify when independent journalists write in-depth stories about the company itself, repeatedly, over time. Revenue and headcount are not criteria.
What's the difference between declined and rejected?
A declined draft can be improved and resubmitted; the reviewer is telling you what's missing. A rejected draft is a signal that the reviewer sees no path to notability and further resubmissions will be ignored. Rejection usually follows several declines without real improvement.
Can I get negative information removed from my page?
Only if it is unsourced, poorly sourced, or given undue weight. Accurate, well-sourced negative information stays. You can request corrections and balance via the talk page, and Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people does require extra care with contentious claims, so unsourced accusations can and should be removed.
Does a Wikipedia page help with Google and AI search?
Yes, substantially. Wikipedia is one of the most trusted sources in Google's knowledge panels and is heavily used to train and ground AI assistants. A page tends to anchor how search engines and AI models describe you. That is also why the scam industry exists; the value is real.
What if someone else already created a page about me and it's wrong?
Do not edit it directly. Create an account, go to the article's talk page, disclose that you are the subject, and post an edit request with the correction and a source. For serious problems involving privacy or defamation, Wikipedia has a volunteer response team reachable by email, and most issues are resolved within days.
Why do some vendors say they "don't disclose" to protect client confidentiality?
Because they are violating the Terms of Use and dressing it up as a feature. Disclosure means the editing account states it is paid and by whom. It does not require publishing your contract. Any vendor advertising non-disclosure is advertising that your page will be deleted when they are caught.
What is Wikiwiser, and who is behind it?
Wikiwiser is an educational site created by Dave Kerpen and Harsh Agarwal, the founders of Notable, a Wikipedia consultancy. We built it because the information most people find about Wikipedia pages comes from the people trying to scam them. We rank our own company first in the vendor section, and we say so plainly, so you can weigh that for yourself. Everything else here is written to be true whether or not you ever hire anyone.
Find out where you stand before you spend a dollar on a page.
Notable's Notability & Viability Report audits every source you have against the real tests and tells you, in writing, whether you are ready now, not yet, or unlikely. If the answer is no, you'll know why and what to do about it.