To publish a Wikipedia page, first search for the subject under its current and former names. If an article already covers it, you can propose an update there. If you need a new article, check what independent sources have published about the subject, write a neutral draft and cite the source for each factual claim.
On the English Wikipedia, look at the title after you save. A title beginning with “Draft:” means readers can see the draft, but it is still outside the encyclopaedia’s main collection of articles. To ask a volunteer to review it, use the submission option on the draft. If the reviewer accepts it, they move it to the article title. Editors with the appropriate account permissions can also create an article directly.
How I check whether a subject qualifies
Firstly, I identify the subject and the relevant notability route. A company, its founder, an academic and a musician are not interchangeable cases. As I explain in my guide to company notability, fame is not a substitute for the evidence required by the applicable guideline.
I identify the applicable route, then assess the published evidence it requires. For the basic biographical route, I look for significant independent, reliable secondary coverage. A passing mention is not the same as a detailed account. For company page creation first drafts, I use only independent, reliable secondary sources that support the company-notability assessment.
That is separate from verifying a particular fact. Wikipedia permits careful use of primary sources for straightforward factual statements. An interview may verify what somebody said without independently establishing their notability. I assess each source against its intended use.
If the evidence does not support a suitable article, commissioning a writer cannot create it. Your Wikipedia content must be:
- Neutral
- Verifiable
- It must not contain original research
The preliminary assessment is the beginning of the case. Research identifies the strongest evidence and any remaining gaps; the outline and neutral prose then demonstrate what that evidence supports. I review proposed additions for accuracy, relevance and proportion. Not every sentence has to establish notability, but every included detail needs an appropriate source and a reason to be there.
Which notability route applies?
I check the guideline’s scope and the actual subject before choosing a route. The criteria below concern whether the subject warrants an article. They do not remove the need for reliable sourcing, neutral wording and proportionate coverage within it.
Companies and organisations
The organisation and company guideline has a primary test requiring multiple sources that each provide significant coverage of the organisation itself and are each reliable, independent and secondary. Several weak mentions cannot be pooled into one qualifying source. I check the guideline’s scope and any applicable alternatives; I do not apply its corporate test to every organised group.
People and biographies
The basic biographical test concerns significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Unlike the company test, the biography guideline allows independent sources to be considered together where no single source provides substantial depth. The additional criteria for any biography include a significant, well-known award or honour, or repeated nominations for one; a widely recognised contribution forming part of the enduring historical record; or inclusion in a country’s standard national biographical dictionary. They are not a mandatory second test or an awards-only shortcut. I also check relevant occupational criteria.
Academics
The academic guideline offers an alternative to the general notability guideline. A substantiated academic criterion does not require an additional general-notability pass. I verify the precise scholarly impact, distinction, appointment or role against that criterion; an ordinary job title or publication count is not enough. Sources allowed by the particular criterion matter, and institutional records may support routine, uncontroversial details.
Musicians and composers
The music guideline distinguishes performers and ensembles from composers and lyricists. It includes qualified coverage and achievement routes, with specific conditions for such matters as charts, awards, recordings and compositions. I verify the actual achievement and who received it; not every award, nomination or recording credit qualifies. Meeting a criterion does not guarantee a separate article.
Sport
The sports guideline does not replace the general notability guideline. Its specified achievements indicate where substantial independent secondary coverage is likely to exist; results, statistics or participation alone do not establish the case. I examine that coverage and the relevant sport’s provisions rather than treating an achievement as an automatic pass.
Living people
The living-person policy is an additional content safeguard, not a notability route. Even with a substantiated case, I apply particular care to sourcing, neutrality, privacy and potentially harmful claims. A notable person’s article is not a place to collect every allegation or private detail.
There is no universal source count that settles every route. I record which criteria apply, which evidence supports them and where the limitations remain. A favourable preliminary assessment cannot guarantee publication or retention. This route summary was reviewed on 1 November 2026.
How do I submit a draft for review?
The Article Wizard helps you begin a draft. Through Articles for Creation, you can submit it for a volunteer to review before it becomes an article. There is no fixed waiting time, and drafts are not necessarily reviewed in submission order. You can continue improving the draft while it waits. If a reviewer declines it, read their comments on the draft page. For example, if they ask for independent coverage, look for a publication that reports on the subject in its own right. Rewording the same press release leaves the sourcing problem in place.
Confirmed or autoconfirmed accounts can create articles directly in mainspace. That is an account permission, not a qualification as a Wikipedia expert. It does not establish that the article is suitable or protect it from later review. Once I’ve checked the sources and the finished draft, I publish the article directly on Wikipedia.
Hire an expert to get published on Wikipedia
Autopatrolled is a separate permission that marks an editor’s new pages as reviewed automatically. It does not grant additional article-creation abilities or exempt the work from scrutiny. My value lies in judging the evidence, writing neutrally and checking the draft before publication.
Getting on Wikipedia entails:
- Writing like a Wikipedian
- Not writing like a copywriter
- Demonstrating the relevant notability case
- Keeping details relevant and proportionate
A weak article can be challenged, returned to draftspace or deleted. I would rather identify a sourcing problem before publication than leave it for other editors to find. The shop explains the services I offer and how to commission the work.
Card required. Plans from £49/month after seven days, renewing monthly unless cancelled. Cancel before your trial ends to avoid the first subscription payment. One trial assessment per account. Draft Reviews and editorial work are charged separately. Private reports and drafts are reviewed inside Studio under the private-use terms.
My current page creation service is available to active WikiNative Studio subscribers, including eligible trial subscribers. Activate your Studio subscription or eligible trial before submitting a brief, links, sources or a draft. Agencies follow the same requirement. I assess the sources before developing the draft in your private workspace; the shop lists current plans, assessments and project fees. Follow a fictional company from its first source check to a proposed article in my worked new-page example in WikiNative Studio.
