Last updated · reviewed by the Essentras editorial team
Wikipedia guide for companies
How to get a Wikipedia page for your company
Your company qualifies for a Wikipedia article only when multiple independent, reliable outlets have covered it in depth, at least 1 of them beyond local media (WP:NCORP). If that coverage exists, whoever writes the draft discloses the connection and submits it through Articles for Creation. Volunteers decide, and no one can buy approval.
Rules quoted from Wikipedia's own policy pages, each with its last edit date
What you will do
- Test your company's coverage source by source against WP:NCORP, in 1 click.
- See which coverage never counts: press releases, paid placements, executive interviews and routine business news.
- Set up disclosure correctly for employees, PR agencies and freelancers.
- Submit a neutral draft through Articles for Creation, with review times as Wikipedia states them.
- Pick an honest alternative if you are not notable yet: Wikidata, a Knowledge Panel or a mention in an existing article.
Start here in 1 click
The checker applies Wikipedia’s tests to the articles you already have. It is free, runs in your browser and saves nothing unless you choose to send it.
Free Wikipedia notability checker
Choose "A company or organization", add your strongest articles and answer 5 questions for each. Every verdict names the Wikipedia rule it applies, and the result says plainly when you are not ready.
Free Knowledge Panel readiness check
Coverage too thin for Wikipedia? See whether Google can already show a panel for your brand. A panel needs no Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia page service
$4,000
- Notability
- Checked free first; we decline the work when it is not there
- Disclosure
- Paid editing disclosed on Wikipedia (WP:PAID)
- Route
- Articles for Creation
- Outcome
- Volunteer reviewers decide; no page is promised
Essentras sells Wikipedia drafting and media placements. Paid placements, including ours, never count toward Wikipedia notability.
The company rule
What Wikipedia’s company rule (WP:NCORP) actually requires
WP:NCORP is the guideline reviewers apply to companies, organizations, products and services. It follows the general notability guideline with, in its own words, "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals."
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
Each source must pass all 4 tests on its own
Significant
It addresses the company directly and in depth: an overview, analysis or evaluation that goes well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements (WP:CORPDEPTH).
Independent
Written by people with no stake in the company and not built from its own material. Investors, partners, suppliers, customers, competitors and sponsors are related parties (WP:ORGIND).
Reliable
Published with real editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Most blogs and self-published sites fail, even when the author is well known.
Secondary
An author's own analysis, at least 1 step removed from events. Press releases, annual reports, executive interviews and court filings are primary sources.
4 more rules reviewers apply to companies
Multiple, unrelated sources
An AP story reprinted by 3 newspapers is 1 source. A series by the same journalist is 1 source, and several articles in the same newspaper count as 1 publisher (WP:MULTSOURCES).
At least 1 beyond local media
Attention solely from local media, such as a small town weekly, or from a newsletter with a narrow audience, is not an indication of notability (WP:AUD).
Trade press is presumed not enough
Feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, but the guideline sets a presumption against them (WP:TRADES).
Notability is not inherited
A famous founder, investor, client or parent company does not make your company notable. Neither do employees, revenue, funding, age or a stock market listing (WP:INHERITORG, WP:LISTED).
The guideline’s own example: 4 impressive-looking sources, 0 that count
| Source | Significant | Independent | Reliable | Secondary | Why it fails |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The New York Times | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | A single-sentence mention in an article about another company. |
| A profile in Forbes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Most such posts are company-sponsored or based on the company's marketing materials. |
| A tech blog post | Yes | Unclear | No | Yes | Blog posts are often sponsored, and self-published sources are generally not reliable. |
| A court filing | Yes | No | Yes | No | A primary source, written by the company or its opponents in court. |
Wikipedia calls itself "a lagging indicator of notability": a topic qualifies only once the outside world has already taken notice of it (WP:GNG, last edited 17 Oct 2026).
Every notability route, for people and companies, with the myths that waste the most time: Wikipedia notability requirements explained
What counts
What counts as significant independent coverage, and what does not
Sort your press list with this table before anyone writes a word. It covers the company cases the general rules leave open, each with the rule a reviewer will cite.
| Coverage you might have | Counts toward notability? | Why, and the rule |
|---|---|---|
| A staff-written feature or investigation, mostly about your company, in a regional or national newspaper | Can count | Significant, independent coverage with editorial oversight that also meets the reach test (WP:SIRS, WP:AUD). |
| Critical coverage, such as a prolonged controversy about your company | Can count | Independence matters, not tone. The guideline’s own examples of substantial coverage include a news article on a prolonged merger controversy. |
| A book chapter, scholarly article or case study by independent authors | Can count | Named in the guideline as substantial coverage (WP:SUBSTANTIAL). |
| An in-depth review of your product by a reviewer who tested it, in a reliable outlet | With care | Reviews must be significant and independent. A product sent free of charge makes it a sponsored review (WP:PRODUCTREV). |
| A feature in a leading trade magazine | Rarely | Presumption against trade publications, even when independence is clear (WP:TRADES). |
| Local newspaper, TV or radio coverage only | Not on its own | At least 1 regional, statewide, provincial, national or international source is necessary (WP:AUD). |
| A press release, a wire pickup or a story rewritten from one | No | Dependent coverage, including churnalism that copies your release (WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE). |
| A paid or sponsored article, an advertorial or a paid placement | No | "Only unpaid sources count" (WP:ORGIND). That includes the placements Essentras sells. |
| A contributor post on a platform without meaningful editorial oversight | No | The guideline names non-staff contributors at Forbes, Huffington Post, Entrepreneur.com, Inc.com and TechCrunch. |
| An interview or Q&A with your founder or CEO | No | Interviews by executives are primary sources: they can support facts in the article, not notability. |
| News of a funding round, launch, hire, acquisition, results or trade fair | No | Listed as trivial, routine coverage, even in a major outlet (WP:CORPTRIV). |
| A best-of, top 100 or fastest-growing list, a directory or a database | No | Trivial inclusion. A notable list such as the Fortune 500 counts like any reliable source but does not replace in-depth coverage. |
| Crypto-centric outlets, for a crypto or blockchain company | Generally no | Consensus is that outlets such as CoinDesk or Bitcoin Magazine generally cannot be used for independence (WP:NCRYPTO). |
| Your website, social profiles, LinkedIn, Crunchbase or Who’s Who entry | No | Material written or published by the organization, or by sources closely associated with it. |
Our own products do not count either
Essentras sells media placements. They are paid, so they can never count toward Wikipedia notability, and we never sell them as a route to a Wikipedia article. A placement can help customers and search engines find you. It cannot build a Wikipedia case.
Who may write it
Who at your company may write the article, and how to disclose
Anyone connected to the company has a conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not ban you from contributing, but it sets strict conditions: disclose first, put new articles through Articles for Creation and propose changes on the talk page instead of editing the live article.
| Your role | What Wikipedia treats you as | What you must do |
|---|---|---|
| Founder, owner or investor | Financial conflict of interest; a paid editor if editing is part of your job | Disclose on your user page and the draft’s talk page. Use Articles for Creation and never review your own draft. |
| Marketing, PR or communications staff | Paid editor. Anyone compensated for publicity related to the subject counts, even if not paid specifically to edit Wikipedia. | Disclose employer, client and affiliation. When the company pays you to write about itself, it is both employer and client. |
| An intern asked to edit | Treated as an employee for disclosure | The same disclosure as staff, from a personal account. |
| A PR firm or agency | Paid editor | Disclose both the firm (employer) and the company (client). Non-disclosure agreements do not remove the duty: "There is no confidentiality for the employer, client, or affiliations." |
| A freelancer hired through a marketplace | Paid editor | The marketplace, for example Fiverr or Upwork, is an affiliation that must be disclosed too. |
| A shared company account | Not allowed | "Do not create a shared organizational account, or use the name of an organization as the account name." |
The rules for every connected editor
- Disclose before your first edit. The Terms of Use accept a statement on your user page, the talk page or the edit summary; Wikipedia’s guideline asks paid editors for the user page and every affected talk page.
- Put new articles through Articles for Creation instead of publishing them directly.
- Once the article is live, you are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. Propose changes on its talk page with an {{Edit COI}} request.
- Never act as a reviewer of your own article. A colleague who posts your text for you must disclose too.
- Paid editing needs a registered account, never a temporary one.
- Paid editors who cannot or will not disclose are prohibited from editing.
Hiring help? The pitch must tell you 4 things
Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guideline lists what every paid editor should disclose to a prospective client. If an offer leaves these out, the guideline recommends not doing business with them.
They have no special authority
Paid editors do not represent the Wikimedia Foundation or the editing community, and have no authority beyond any volunteer.
You will be named
They must disclose their employer, the client and affiliations on Wikipedia. There is no confidentiality for the client.
Nobody owns the article
Paid edits are reviewed and revised like any others, and neither the client nor the paid editor owns the article.
No outcome is promised
Paid editors cannot promise any outcome: the article can be revised or deleted by other editors at any time.
Paid editors must also send you the link to their Wikipedia user page, and link it on every website where they advertise paid editing (WP:PAID). Before you pay anyone, Essentras included, open that user page and look for the disclosure.
Step by step
How to submit your company’s article through Articles for Creation, in 8 steps
Articles for Creation is Wikipedia’s review queue for drafts. Anyone can submit, and Wikipedia says editors with a conflict of interest or a paid connection should use it.
1. Check for an existing article or draft
Search Wikipedia for the company, other spellings and former names, and the Draft namespace (Draft: followed by the name). Improve an existing draft instead of starting a second one.
2. Audit your sources before writing
List every article about the company and test each in the notability checker. You need multiple sources that pass all 4 tests, at least 1 beyond local media. If none pass, stop here.
3. Create a personal account
Use a username for 1 person, never the company name, and never share the login. Accounts become autoconfirmed after 10 edits and 4 days, but connected editors should still use Articles for Creation.
4. Disclose the connection first
Add {{Paid}} to your user page if editing is part of your job or you are paid in any way, and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} to the draft’s talk page. The templates are below.
5. Write the draft yourself, neutrally
Summarize what the independent sources say, criticism included, in plain factual sentences. Leave out marketing copy. Do not use ChatGPT or any other large language model: Wikipedia prohibits using them to generate or rewrite article content.
6. Cite every claim
Put an inline citation after each fact. Base the draft on the independent sources from step 2; your own website may support only basic, uncontroversial facts once notability is established.
7. Submit it for review
Click "Submit the draft for review!" on the draft, or add {{subst:submit}} at the top in the source editor and publish. The banner then reads "Review waiting, please be patient."
8. Respond to the outcome
Accepted: it moves into the encyclopedia and anyone can edit it. Declined: fix what the reviewer names, then resubmit. Rejected: ask for reconsideration only with significant new evidence. Never remove earlier review notices.
Infobox, image licensing and the deletion routes for any subject are in the general guide: How to create a Wikipedia page, step by step
Review times
How long review takes, in Wikipedia’s own words
Wikipedia gives no fixed time. On 19 Oct 2026 the banner on every submitted draft read: "This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,129 pending submissions waiting for review."
| Stage | What Wikipedia states | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Waiting for review | "There is no fixed waiting time. Some drafts are reviewed quickly, while others might wait considerably longer." Drafts are not necessarily reviewed in the order they were submitted. | WP:AFC |
| The queue today | 7 weeks or more, with 3,129 submissions pending. | Review banner and pending category, 19 Oct 2026 |
| While you wait | You can keep improving the draft without submitting it again. Do not resubmit repeatedly or ask individual reviewers to review it quickly. | WP:AFC |
| A faster review for a fee | Not available. The scam warning lists offers to get a draft "accepted quickly" among the paid services that are scams. | WP:SCAM |
| After acceptance | "Once an article is created about yourself, your group, or your company, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels." | WP:COI |
- The banner said 6 weeks or more with 2,988 drafts pending on 14 Oct 2026, and 7 weeks or more with 3,129 on 19 Oct 2026. Treat any figure as a snapshot.
- Check today’s figure yourself: open the pending submissions category on Wikipedia, or the review banner on any submitted draft.
- Wikipedia publishes no acceptance rate, so do not read approval odds into the size of the queue.
Wikidata
Wikidata vs Wikipedia: different rules, different jobs
Wikidata is a separate Wikimedia project: a structured database of items and statements, not an encyclopedia article. Its inclusion rule is looser, and it is not a back door to Wikipedia.
| Question | Wikipedia article | Wikidata item |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A neutral prose summary of published coverage | A structured entry: labels, identifiers and statements, each ideally backed by a reference |
| Who qualifies | Significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources (WP:NCORP) | Any 1 of 3: a valid sitelink to a Wikimedia page, a "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" described by "serious and publicly available references", or a structural need |
| Who decides | A volunteer reviewer at Articles for Creation, then any editor | The Wikidata community; disagreements go to a request for deletion |
| Paid editing | Disclosure required (Terms of Use, WP:PAID) | The Terms of Use disclosure rule covers all Wikimedia sites, so paid edits are disclosed there too |
| Leads to a Wikipedia article? | Not applicable | No. An item does not make a company notable for Wikipedia. |
| Useful for | Readers who want an encyclopedic overview | Machine-readable facts, such as the official website, founding date and identifiers, that other sites and services can reuse |
Wikidata says its guidelines are "intentionally left a bit vague" and that "the final decision is always up to the community". A discussion on reforming its notability policy was open when we read it.
Scams
Why paid-page scams target companies, and how to check any provider
Wikipedia keeps a scam warning because companies are the target. It says scammers look for declined drafts, recently deleted articles and editors writing about themselves or a connected subject, then offer to publish, speed up, rescue or protect an article for money.
Unsolicited offers
"If someone contacts you and offers any kind of Wikipedia services in exchange for payment, it is a scam."
Claims of special status
Posing as Wikipedia administrators or Wikimedia Foundation staff, or claiming they can pull strings with editors.
Pressure to go off-wiki
Insisting on LinkedIn, WhatsApp, email, Discord or the phone, where security-aware editors cannot see the conversation and warn you.
Promised results
Any promise of acceptance or protection. The scam warning says no one can promise what will happen on Wikipedia.
Rescue fees
Offers to save a page from deletion for a large fee are "always fraudulent", the conflict of interest guideline says, and so are offers to use special privileges.
Protection plans
A fee to "protect" an article from changes. Wikipedia lists protecting an article among the paid services that are scams.
Check any provider in 5 minutes
- Ask for the Wikipedia username that will do the editing and open its user page. It must disclose employer and clients. If a website claims an editor works for it and that user page has no declaration, Wikipedia says this likely indicates impersonation.
- Open the talk pages of articles they cite as past work and look for a paid connected-contributor notice.
- Ask in writing whether any text will be written or rewritten by AI. The only acceptable answer is no.
- Ask what they refuse to do. Skipping disclosure and promising acceptance should both be on the list.
- Check that the offer says they have no special authority and that you will not own the article.
If you were contacted or already paid
Stop replying and block the sender. Forward the whole conversation, with email headers, to [email protected], and keep a copy for your bank or the police. Do not click links or open files. If you shared your Wikipedia password, change it and turn on two-factor authentication. Wikipedia says it cannot help recover money lost to a scam.
Not notable yet
Not notable yet? 6 honest alternatives
Most companies are not notable yet, and that is normal. Do not pay anyone for a draft until the coverage exists, us included. Here is what you can do instead.
Earn coverage that counts
Notability comes from journalists, authors and researchers who choose to write about you in depth. Give them a reason: real news, original data, a product worth reviewing. Notability is not temporary: once the coverage exists, the case can be made.
A mention in an existing article
A company that fails the guideline can still appear in a related article, such as the history or economy section of its town, if the detail is significant, not promotional and verifiable in independent sources (WP:FAILORG). As a connected editor, propose it on that article’s talk page.
A Wikidata item
If your company meets 1 of Wikidata’s 3 criteria, an item can hold your official website, identifiers and founding facts, with references and disclosure.
A Google Knowledge Panel
Google can show a panel for a brand without a Wikipedia article. Our guide explains how panels are built and how to claim one.
Your own site
Publish an accurate About page with Organization structured data that links your official profiles. It creates no notability, but it gives search engines and AI assistants 1 consistent source about you.
Requested articles, which rarely works
Wikipedia keeps a list where anyone can suggest a topic, but its header says: "We are not an on-demand article writing service. Most requested articles will not be written."
The panel route, step by step: How to get a Google Knowledge Panel
What will not help
Press releases, sponsored articles and paid placements, including the placements Essentras sells. They can help people find you. They cannot build a Wikipedia case, and a reviewer will discount them.
Copy-ready
Copy-ready templates for companies
5 templates for the company-specific parts. Replace everything in [brackets] and the example names. Wikitext goes in the source editor; the rest is plain text.
Internal Wikipedia rules for your team
Send to marketing, PR and leadership before anyone touches Wikipedia.
Subject: Our rules for Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a marketing channel, and an article about us is not ours to control. Until further notice:
1. Nobody edits our Wikipedia article directly. Changes are proposed on its talk page with an {{Edit COI}} request.
2. Anyone who edits Wikipedia about us as part of their job, or for any payment, discloses it on their user page before the first edit.
3. One person, one account. No account named after the company and no shared logins.
4. New articles go through Articles for Creation, never straight into the encyclopedia.
5. No AI-written text, in drafts or in requests.
6. No paid "Wikipedia services" from anyone who contacted us first. Forward those offers to [email protected].
7. Only independent coverage counts. Press releases, sponsored articles and paid placements do not.
Questions: [name, email]Employee disclosure for your user page
Editing is part of your job, or the company pays you in any way. The company is both employer and client, so the client field stays empty.
{{Paid|employer=Example Inc.|article=Draft:Example Inc.}}
I work for Example Inc. as [job title]. I will not edit articles about Example Inc. directly; I propose changes on their talk pages.Agency or PR firm disclosure
A firm pays you to work on a client’s draft or article.
On your user page:
{{Paid|employer=Example PR LLC|client=Example Inc.|article=Draft:Example Inc.}}
At the top of the draft's talk page:
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=YourUsername|U1-employer=Example PR LLC|U1-client=Example Inc.}}Source audit sheet
Fill in 1 line per article before anyone drafts a word.
Company: [name] Date checked: [date] For each article: Outlet | Date | Link | Written by staff? | Mostly about us, in depth? | Did we pitch, pay, supply or place it? | Original reporting, not a release rewrite? | Reach: local / regional / national / international It counts only if: written by staff = yes, in depth = yes, we were involved = no, original = yes. Also needed: at least 1 counting article with regional, statewide, national or international reach. Count reprints, and several articles by the same outlet or author, as 1. Never counts: press releases, sponsored or paid articles, contributor posts without editorial oversight, executive interviews, funding or launch news, lists and directories.
Report a paid-editing solicitation
Someone contacted you offering a Wikipedia page or protection for a fee.
To: [email protected] Subject: Unsolicited paid Wikipedia editing offer received by [company name] Hello, On [date], [company name] received the unsolicited offer below. It claims [what they claimed, for example approval within days or administrator access]. The full message and email headers are pasted below. Sender name or account: [as shown] Channel: [email / LinkedIn / WhatsApp / other] Article or draft mentioned: [title, if any] We have not replied and have not paid. [Your name], [role], [company]
Disclosure templates for unpaid connections, edit summaries and edit requests are in the general guide: All disclosure templates
Optional help
When paying for help makes sense, and cheaper starts
If the checker shows multiple independent sources and you would rather not learn the process, a disclosed paid editor can save you time. It cannot buy approval. Essentras charges $4,000 flat. We check notability for free first and decline the work when the coverage is not there. If we take it on, we research the sources, draft neutrally, disclose the paid relationship on Wikipedia and submit through Articles for Creation. Volunteers decide the outcome, and we say so before you pay. How the Wikipedia service works.
Optional. You can follow every step on this page without buying anything.
Often added
Business Knowledge Panel
$1,200
Own the box Google shows for your brand. It needs no Wikipedia article, and placements are never required for it.
See the panel serviceFounder Knowledge Panel
$650
For the founder or CEO, when the person is better known than the company.
See the panel serviceAI Visibility Tracker
$49 a month
See every week what 7 AI assistants say about your company, with their sources. A free plan tracks 3 questions a month.
Start tracking
Not ready yet?
Free notability checker
$0
Re-run it whenever new independent coverage appears. It cites the rule behind every verdict.
Open the checkerKnowledge Panel readiness check
$0
An honest read on whether Google can show a panel for your brand today.
Run the readiness checkAI Visibility Baseline
$97
A one-time read of what AI assistants already say about your company, and the first fixes.
See the baseline
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Can my company have a Wikipedia page?▾
Only if multiple independent, reliable outlets have covered it in depth, with at least 1 regional, statewide, national or international source (WP:NCORP). Size, revenue, funding and a stock listing do not count on their own. Wikipedia’s company guideline says only a small percentage of the world’s organizations qualify.
How many sources does a company need for Wikipedia?▾
No number is set. The guideline says a single significant independent source is almost never enough, and sources must be unrelated: reprints, and several articles from the same outlet or author, count once. An essay by experienced editors suggests that a company with fewer than 3 news articles discussing it at length is likely not notable; it is an essay, not a rule.
Do press releases, paid articles or interviews count?▾
No. Press releases and stories rewritten from them, paid or sponsored articles, contributor posts without editorial oversight and executive interviews do not count toward a company’s notability. WP:NCORP puts it plainly: only unpaid sources count.
Can an employee write our company’s Wikipedia page?▾
An employee may draft it, but must disclose the connection first, submit through Articles for Creation and accept a neutral article the company does not control. Staff paid for publicity work count as paid editors, and shared or company-named accounts are not allowed.
How long does Wikipedia take to review a company article?▾
There is no fixed time. On 19 Oct 2026 the review banner said review may take 7 weeks or more, with 3,129 drafts pending, and that drafts are reviewed in no specific order. No one can pay to move a draft up the queue.
Can we pay someone to create our Wikipedia page?▾
Yes, if they disclose you as the client and give you the link to their Wikipedia user page. Payment buys work, never approval: volunteers decide, and Wikipedia’s scam warning says anyone who contacts you offering paid Wikipedia services is running a scam.
Is a Wikidata item the same as a Wikipedia page?▾
No. Wikidata is a separate database with a looser rule: a clearly identifiable entity described by serious, publicly available references can qualify. An item does not make your company notable for Wikipedia, and paid edits there must be disclosed too.
What if our company is not notable yet?▾
Do not pay for a draft. Earn independent coverage, propose a mention in a related article if it is significant, create a Wikidata item if you qualify, and use a Google Knowledge Panel and accurate structured data on your own site meanwhile.
Can we control what the article says once it is live?▾
No. Anyone can edit it, add sourced criticism or nominate it for deletion, and connected editors are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. You can propose corrections on its talk page; our guide to fixing a Wikipedia page explains how.
Next steps
- 01
Run the free notability checker
Choose company mode and test your 5 strongest articles. Be strict about who pitched, supplied or paid for each.
- 02
Close the gaps that can be closed
If you lack a source beyond local media, or only have routine news, the work is earning coverage, not writing.
- 03
Set your team’s rules
Send the internal rules template and set up disclosure before anyone edits.
- 04
Draft and submit through Articles for Creation
Neutral text from independent sources, disclosure on the talk page, then submit and wait.
- 05
Use an alternative meanwhile
A Wikidata item if you qualify, a Knowledge Panel, and accurate Organization data on your own site.
Start with your sources
The checker is free, runs in your browser and cites the Wikipedia rule behind every verdict.
Check my company's sources Or see how the paid service worksChecked on . Every rule, price and figure on this page comes from the official pages listed below, read on that date, or from the Essentras price list. Rules change: if a page below disagrees with this guide, the page wins.
Sources
- Wikipedia: Notability (organizations and companies), WP:NCORP (last edited 11 Oct 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikipedia: Notability, WP:GNG (last edited 17 Oct 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikipedia: Conflict of interest, WP:COI (last edited 16 Sep 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikipedia: Paid-contribution disclosure, WP:PAID (last edited 20 Apr 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, section 4, read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikipedia: Articles for creation, WP:AFC (last edited 13 Oct 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikipedia: Articles for creation review banner, rendered 19 Oct 2026 at 02:35 UTC
- Wikipedia API: pending Articles for creation submissions, read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikipedia: Scam warning, WP:SCAM (last edited 1 Oct 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikidata: Notability (last edited 28 Sep 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikipedia: Requested articles (header last edited 16 May 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikipedia essay: When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia (last edited 14 Sep 2026), read 19 Oct 2026
- Wikimedia Foundation: You don’t need to pay for a Wikipedia article (22 Aug 2018), read 19 Oct 2026
Conflict of interest: Essentras sells paid Wikipedia drafting ($4,000 flat) and media placements, and is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Paid placements never count toward Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. General information, not legal advice.
More on Wikipedia for companies
Adds us as a preferred source, so our guides surface for you in Search and AI answers. One click, and you can undo it any time.
Free tool · Authority Audit
Where does your authority actually stand?
Before you fix one piece, see the whole picture. A free Authority Audit scores your presence across Google, AI, Wikipedia, reviews, and press, and shows you exactly where to start.