Blog / Wikipedia / How to Get a Wikipedia Page and How to Be Eligible

How to Get a Wikipedia Page and How to Be Eligible

By Kent Campbell
Last updated: April 10, 2025
15 minute read

A famous person surrounded by an adoring crowd that is happy he has a Wikipedia article. — How famous do you need to be to get a Wikipedia page? Not that famous. But you must be notable.

Want to know how to get a Wikipedia page? The most important thing for the subject to have is notability. The article’s subject must either have it, or notability needs to be created. The guidelines in this article will help you understand the building blocks that go into creating a Wikipedia page and how to engineer them.

Notability is a concept used by Wikipedia editors to determine whether a subject merits an article. It’s important to note that the notability guideline does not determine the content of an article – just its existence.

Wikipedia pages can positively affect reputation and reputation management because the site is often highly visible in search results.

So, what does notability have to do with it? Basically, a subject is assumed to be notable if it has received “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are not controlled by the subject of the Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia Creation: Notability is Key

If you want to create a Wikipedia page, the page’s subject must have notability above all else. This means:

Significant Coverage: The subject of the article must have received significant coverage from reliable sources. “Significant coverage” means that the source addresses the subject directly and in detail; a mere mention or two in an article is not enough.
Reliable Sources: Wikipedia sources must be reliable (although whether Wikipedia itself is reliable is another question). That means they are third-party publications with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. This could include newspapers, magazines, academic journals, books, and other reputable publications.
Independent of the Subject: The sources must be independent of the subject. Self-published sources such as personal blogs, social media profiles, press releases, or websites controlled by the subject of the article are not considered reliable when determining the notability of a Wikipedia article.

Meeting the notability guidelines for a Wikipedia article does not guarantee an article will survive. It just means that the topic is appropriate for its article, but it still has to meet Wikipedia’s other policies and guidelines as well as objective and subjective decisions made by editors.

Why you should establish notability before creating an article

Notability should be established upfront because once an article is deleted for a lack of notability, it is difficult to create a second time without going above and beyond what might have initially worked.

Steps to Create a New Wikipedia Page

Creating a new Wikipedia page is a great way to share knowledge with the world. However, there are a few important steps to take before creating the page. First, understand Wikipedia’s strict guidelines to ensure that your new page aligns with Wikipedia standards. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to create a Wikipedia page:

Understand Wikipedia’s Policies and Guidelines
Before you start, spend some time familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Pay special attention to Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines, notability guidelines, and neutral point of view policy. This will help you understand what kind of content is acceptable and how to approach writing your article.
Create a Wikipedia Account
Only registered users can create new pages. Create an account on Wikipedia using a legitimate email address and a username.
Get Some Experience by Editing Existing Pages
Before starting a new page, do a little practice to get the hang of it. We suggest you practice editing an existing article or two to familiarize yourself with how it’s done. Don’t make large changes; just improve a few pages in minor ways.
Conduct Thorough Research on Reliable Sources
Wikipedia requires that all information added to its pages be verifiable from reliable and independent sources. It is extremely important to do this part well. You should compile references from books, journals, newspapers, or reputable online publications. Personal blogs, press releases, or any form of self-published media are not considered reliable. Jump here for more detail.
Draft the Article in Your User Sandbox
Don’t just make an article and set it live. Your user account comes with a ‘sandbox’ that you can use to draft your article. It’s what it sounds like; a safe space where you can practice and finalize your new Wikipedia article before it goes live.
To create your sandbox, go to your user page and append /sandbox to the URL. For example, if your username is ‘ExampleUser’, your sandbox would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ExampleUser/sandbox.
Write and Format Your Article
At this point, you can start writing. Write a neutral, well-sourced article in your sandbox. Wikipedia articles should be written in an encyclopedic style, and include appropriate section headings, a lead section summarizing the topic, body sections providing more detailed information, and a reference section listing your sources. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style to understand what this means.
Submit Your Draft for Review
You can just make an article live if your account has made a few edits. But the way Wikipedia usually wants new article done is by submitting it for review. To do this, go through the Articles for Creation process. This step involves moving the content from your sandbox to the draft namespace, where experienced editors will review it.
Respond to Feedback and Make Necessary Revisions
After you submit your draft for review, Wikipedia’s volunteer editors will examine it. They might approve it, suggest changes, or they might nuke it. Take their feedback constructively and make any necessary revisions to improve the quality of your article.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project that relies on input from many editors, so your patience and willingness to cooperate will ensure a smoother process.

Subject-specific guidelines

In addition to the basic notability guidelines, there are subject-specific guidelines for notability. For instance, in order for musicians or bands to be considered notable, they probably need to have released at least one album on a major record label – or received significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources.

Biographies of Living Persons (BLP)

Biographies of living persons are called BLP’s in Wiki-speak. They are a special category for new Wikipedia pages. For people who are currently alive to have a Wikipedia article created, they must adhere to “BLP guidelines”. Here are the basics of BLP Wikipedia page creation:

Privacy Concerns: For biographies of living persons (BLP), Wikipedia gives special consideration to privacy concerns. While this is a general guideline for all Wikipedia articles, it is emphasized for BLPs due to the potential for real-world harm.
Special Content Restrictions: BLPs have unique restrictions that others may not, such as a higher bar for avoiding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Editors are especially careful with BLP quality guidelines.
Unverified or Potentially Defamatory Content: BLP policy states that unverified or potentially defamatory content shouldn’t be included when creating Wikipedia articles, regardless of whether it is covered by a reliable source. Of course, in the real world, this does happen fairly often.
Higher Standard of Sources: BLP articles demand higher standards for sourcing, particularly when it comes to negative information. The sources used should be of high quality and reliability, and they must directly support the information as it is presented in the article.

New Wikipedia Pages for Companies

A battle rages on Wikipedia. On one hand, most companies would like the prestige that comes with having a Wikipedia article about them. On the other hand, many Wikipedia editors simply do not like companies and will find any reason to take down or degrade articles about companies – no matter their market segment.

Crypto-related companies seem to have an especially hard time. Reputation X is often asked to create pages for cryptocurrency companies, but references from most industry cryptocurrency publications, on their own, are not enough to prove notability.

Financial services companies are another industry segment that must endure additional challenges, but not nearly as many as gambling companies.

Good vs. Bad Wikipedia References

A Washington Post article about a subject is usually considered a good reference when creating a Wikipedia page, whereas a press release about the same subject is not considered notable.

Examples of sources Wikipedia generally deems unreliable include:

Tabloid newspapers
Articles by contributors rather than staff writers
Fan sites like Fandom.com
Content owned or controlled by the subject
Press releases
State-controlled media (propaganda)
Quora
Reddit conversations
Breitbart.com
Sputnik News
The Onion
Answers.com

… and many more. For further reading, see this article.

Why a press release isn’t considered notable

We are often asked why press releases are not reliable. After all, isn’t the subject of an article the primary source and, therefore, more reliable? A press release isn’t considered notable as a Wikipedia article reference because the subject of the prospective Wikipedia article can control the press release. A press release or similar content that the subject can control is considered a “primary source.”

A press release is essentially self-promotion. Anyone can have a press release created for less than $100. That is why a press release is considered “owned” content, whereas a Wikipedia reference needs to be “earned” content.

Creating an Article When There’s Not Enough Notability

If a subject of the new Wikipedia article does not quite have notability, it may be possible to engineer notability. Keep in mind, most people and businesses cannot achieve the notability necessary, but some subjects are almost close enough and just need a nudge to get over the line.

Some subjects are almost close enough and just need a nudge to get over the line.

Here is an example of earning notability: Reputation X recently helped a financial services client develop a new Wikipedia article. The company was preparing for a sale and knew that a Wikipedia article could improve its valuation. The problem was that new articles about companies in the financial services space are considered challenging to earn. It’s a closely watched topic, with many PR firms trying to get their clients into Wikipedia.

Example: How We Achieved Notability for Our Client

Our solution was to identify similar companies with existing articles. Then we identified the types of publications that supported their articles. We then performed a gap analysis between what our client had and what it needed (based on what similar companies had). Then we generated headline ideas and a target list of publications and provided that to our client’s internal PR team.

Our client spent 90 days performing outreach and ended up with a handful of good articles that could be used as references – about 25% of the articles they successfully pitched. Once they had the additional notability in place, we began the process of creating a new Wikipedia article for them. The new article was accepted by senior editors and stands to this day.

Other Considerations When Creating a New Wikipedia Page

There are (at least) four things to consider when creating a Wikipedia article.

Notability test
Many references to the subject
References themselves have a Wikipedia article
Bad Wikipedia sources

Every day, Wikipedia takes down about 1,000 articles. The articles are removed by either people or specialized bots. The bots sometimes have fun names like ClueBot NG and Huggle.

Wikipedia editors make mistakes, mainly around notability requirements. Sometimes, Wikipedia articles are removed because an editor just thought they should be gone, and no one objected. This often happens to articles that were created years ago but were overlooked. As Wikipedia guidelines evolve, articles may succumb to deletion.

1. Is the subject notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion?

At its core, Wikipedia strives for reliability. Are there articles written about your brand or about you? A Wikipedia article about a person requires the person to be notable. Many people and brands believe they are notable but aren’t (Tip: you can take a quick notability test to get a rough idea).

Does a simple mention count as a Wikipedia reference?

No. An article where the subject is just mentioned or quoted is not usually good enough to merit inclusion as a reference. Articles about the subject need to be *about* the subject as the main angle of the article (or another type of content).

The ideal type of online content to be used when creating a Wikipedia article could be something like an interview, a biography, a scientific paper, or an article by a reasonably well-regarded author. In other words, a blog contributor on a little-known blog does not count. In fact, a contributor as an author is far less likely to be accepted when compared to a staff writer.

Here are two “rule of thumb” guidelines:

Is your brand name (or your name) in the article’s title?
Is the article on a site many, if not most, people have heard of?

Wikipedia states it this way:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Certain subjects within Wikipedia have particular guidelines called subject-specific notability guidelines.

2. Are there numerous well-known references online?

The quality of good citations is essential for referenceable Wikipedia content, and so is quantity.

It takes more than one reference to make a Wikipedia article. Far more. For example, a biography of a living person requires web references for most, if not all, facts presented. Wikipedia editors are very picky about this.

For example, a statement like: “John Smith is the CEO of Acme Roadrunner food and was born in Ventura, California on July 5th, 1964.” would ideally require one or two solid and verifiable references about the facts contained in the sentence.

Acceptable references could be public birth records on a government website or an article about John Smith in a well-known and respected publication.

An example of this would be Elon Musk’s Wikipedia article, which has numerous references. At least one of the references is to Wired.com, a well-known tech publication (see an image of his citations above).

Primary vs. reliable Wikipedia sources

What is a primary Wikipedia source?

According to Wikipedia, a primary source is original content that is close to an event and is often an account written by people who are directly involved with the subject. Primary sources cannot be used for new Wikipedia articles (usually). A self-published website the subject is not acceptable as a reference (more examples of bad Wikipedia references here).

You cannot generally use your own website as a Wikipedia reference

Examples of a primary source would be the subject’s website, a press release by the subject, proxy statements, patents, etc.

What is a reliable Wikipedia source?

A reliable Wikipedia source is a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. These are usually considered “secondary sources”.

Examples of reliable Wikipedia sources include reasonably well-known and reliable news sites, video news interviews, government databases, and similar publications. Scholarly articles have value, but articles that cite scholarly articles are often better.

Is Wikipedia a reliable source for Wikipedia?

No. Wikipedia itself states that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia states the following:

“Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong.”.

3. Ideally, the references themselves have a Wikipedia article

Ideally, each site used as a reference will also have its own Wikipedia article. For example, the New York Times has its own Wikipedia article. Therefore it is probably a notable reference.

When working to get a Wikipedia article, do all references need to have their own Wikipedia articles? No. But it’s a good idea to do so, especially when an article is new.

Why? When a publication used as a reference already has its own Wikipedia article, editors are more likely to see that reference as reliable.

Remember that a mere mention of the brand being referenced on a publication with its own Wikipedia article isn’t enough – the referenced article must still be “about” the subject and not just be a passing mention.

A publication with its own Wikipedia article is generally trusted, but not always. Take Fox News, for example. In August 2020, Wikipedia stopped calling Fox News a reliable source. To quote Wired:

…a panel of Wikipedia administrators in July declared that Fox News would no longer be considered “generally reliable” in its reporting on politics and science, and in those areas “should be used with caution to verify contentious claims.

Still, in most cases, the existence of a Wikipedia article for publication means it can be considered reliable and would, therefore, make a good reference.

4. Avoid “bad” Wikipedia sources

When creating a new Wikipedia article, weak or “bad” reference sources should be avoided. Certain types of publications are considered non-reliable. Bad Wikipedia references include the following:

Self-published material like the subject’s own website (this is common)
Fox News (considered “marginally reliable“)
Nearly all sites that rely on user-generated content
Tabloid journalism
Amazon reviews
Reddit (anyone can post on Reddit)
Blogspot.com (and most blogging sites)
Answers.com
International Business Times
IMDB
WikiLeaks (sometimes)
ResearchGate
Occupy Democrats
Medium.com
Quora
PR Newswire

For a more exhaustive list with explanations, check out this article.

Should you create your own Wikipedia article?

Self-written articles seem to have an odor

Wikipedia rules say that you should not create your own Wikipedia article. Doing so would be considered a conflict of interest. From a practical standpoint, it’s difficult to write your own Wikipedia article anyway because, let’s face it, it is hard to be objective about oneself. Self-written articles seem to have a certain odor to them that professional Wikipedia editors can easily sense.

Articles removed for conflict of interest are tough to revive

If you write your own Wikipedia article and it gets taken down, it is very difficult to get a new article, even if you do it right the second time. Why? Because it will be suspect, and so will its author(s).

Creating Wikipedia articles can be a bit like a metaphorical knife fight. The person or persons who take a Wikipedia article down will almost certainly be watching to see if someone tries to put the article back up again in the future. So even if you are concerned about false information in an existing article, think twice before editing it yourself.

Learn more about Wikipedia related topics here.

Wikipedia FAQs

Am I eligible for a Wikipedia article?

There are four things to consider when determining Wikipedia eligibility. Are you not able? Are there numerous references to you online? Do the references themselves have a Wikipedia article? Are the references from notable sources? If the answer to these questions is no, then you probably aren’t eligible for a Wikipedia article.

Can I make a Wikipedia article about myself?

You can, but you shouldn’t. Wikipedia rules say that you should not create your own Wikipedia article. Doing so would be a conflict of interest. If you decide to write one anyway, and it gets taken down, it is very difficult to get a new article because your name will be flagged.

Why does Wikipedia remove articles?

Every day Wikipedia editors and bots take down about 1,000 articles. They are removing articles that are not well sourced, are biased, or are promotional in nature.