Wikipedia is written by volunteers who apply one published test. Most people who ask us have never seen it. Here is the test, how to find out where you stand against it today, and what happens next if you clear it.
Check where you stand, free See the testThe free audit reads what is already published about you and tells you which of it counts. No payment, and no obligation.
Every Wikipedia article about a living person stands or falls on this.
This is the part that surprises everybody. A thick folder of coverage can contain nothing Wikipedia will accept, and two quiet articles can be enough. The difference is who wrote it and why.
Four steps, about four weeks from your go-ahead to the article being submitted, and we stop at the first one if the answer is no.
Charged only once you clear the three sources. There is deliberately no buy button on this page: it is the one thing we sell that you cannot simply decide to buy, because paying does not make somebody notable and a page built short of the bar does not last.
This is a different job from the one above, and it is the one nobody realises they can buy. An article that already exists has settled the question of whether you belong on Wikipedia, so the three source test does not apply and there is nothing to unlock. What is left is accuracy, and that is work we can start this week.
£400 to £1,000, depending on whether it is a date and a title or a page that needs rebuilding. We read what is there and quote before starting, and every change goes through the talk page with a source attached.
An article is not a certificate that goes in a drawer. Anybody may edit it the day after it appears, facts go out of date, and the pages that get into trouble are usually the ones nobody has looked at for two years. This is the honest answer to the question the section above raises and does not close.
£420 a year, and it is optional. Buying the article without it is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not knowing the article had been nominated is not.
No, and neither can anybody else. Volunteers decide, they can decline, and they can delete an article later. Anyone promising you a page is either misunderstanding how Wikipedia works or hoping you do.
What we will do is tell you honestly whether you meet the test before you spend anything.
No. The Wikimedia Terms of Use require anybody editing for payment to disclose it, and we do, on the account and on the article's talk page.
Anybody offering to do this discreetly is telling you they intend to break those rules with your name attached. Undisclosed paid editing gets accounts blocked and articles deleted, and the person left holding that is the subject, not the editor who has moved on.
Then we say so, and we do not take the money. It is the only thing we sell that is locked, and it opens on the published test rather than on a payment.
The useful answer is usually to start where the bar is lower and the work still counts later: your own page, your Wikidata entry, and coverage that would go toward the three sources. None of that is wasted if Wikipedia opens. The reverse is not true.
The discussion stays public, with your name on it, and a second attempt starts from a worse position than the first. That is the whole reason we refuse work that is short of the bar rather than trying and hoping.
That is the most common way people arrive at this page, and it is worth knowing it was not personal. A new article about a company or a living person, written from an account with no history and no declared connection, is one of the most heavily watched things on the site. It usually goes for sourcing rather than for anything anybody objected to.
It does make a second attempt harder, because the discussion is still there. Not impossible, and worth saying before somebody tries it a third time.
Yes, and each language edition is a separate community with its own notability rules and its own reviewers. An article that passes on English Wikipedia is not automatically accepted on the German or the Ukrainian one, and the coverage that counts is usually coverage in that language.
Priced per edition once we have seen what exists. Ask on the audit and say which language matters to you.
No, and this is the most expensive misunderstanding in the subject. The client we can name got a knowledge panel in eleven days with no Wikipedia article, no press placed and no links bought.
What actually produces a knowledge panel covers what does.
No. A Wikipedia article is not a profile you own. You cannot approve it, you cannot quietly correct it, and anybody may edit it the day after it appears. If what you want is a record that says what you agreed it says, that is your own page, not this.
Different job, usually a faster one, and it is not behind the lock, because an article that exists has already settled whether you belong on Wikipedia. What we can and cannot change sets out what that involves and what it costs.
The free audit reads what is published about you, says which of it counts toward the three sources, and tells you how far off you are. It is the same instrument we use before quoting.
Check where you stand, free