Questions people ask, in five topics

Notability means that people with no connection to you have already written about you, in depth, in publications Wikipedia treats as reliable. It does not mean fame or importance. The free source review answers this question for one subject, in writing.

A source has to be all four of these at once: significant (it is about you, not a mention), independent (not written by you or for you), reliable (editorial oversight), and secondary (someone else’s reporting or analysis). Our guide explains why press releases do not count.

No. Press releases are written by the subject, however widely they are reprinted. Sponsored and contributor-platform pieces have no independent editor. Interviews can verify what you said, but the words are yours, so they do little for notability.

There is no fixed number. Reviewers look for several strong, independent sources with significant coverage. Two excellent ones beat ten weak ones.

No. Followers, revenue, employee counts and capital raised have no bearing on notability. What counts is independent coverage of the company by journalists.

Rarely on its own. “Best of” and “fastest growing” listings are treated as trivial coverage. A major award that independent publications wrote about can count.

Every draft is judged on its own sources, and not every existing article meets today’s standards. Some of them would not survive a review.

Named chairs, editorships of major journals, highly cited work and significant awards count under the academic guideline. A long CV on its own does not. Most senior academics we hear from already have a page, so we check that first.

Independent reviews of your books in recognised publications, or other markers under the creative-professionals guideline. Sales figures and your own site do not count.

Yes, if they were published and can be verified. We log where each one is and how a reviewer can check it.

The written review scores the independent coverage out of 100 against the guideline that applies. A new article is offered only when the source review scores 60 or more out of 100. Below that we do not file, and we tell you why, and what would change the answer.

It depends on volunteer reviewers, and we do not promise dates. Drafts commonly wait weeks, sometimes months, in a queue we cannot speed up. How we work explains each step.

No. Reviewers are volunteers. Resubmitting without a real improvement, or pressing reviewers, does not help and can harm the draft.

You can, with care: disclose that you are the subject, write only from independent sources, and submit through Articles for Creation. If you engage us, a person on our team writes from the sources in the review. We do not take wording from you, because an article written by its subject is the fastest way to a decline.

No. We never edit a live article about a client, from any account. Changes are proposed as edit requests on the talk page, each one quoting its source, and a volunteer decides.

No. Wikipedia’s guidance on large language models rules it out, and a draft that reads as generated is declined. A person writes every sentence and checks it against the source.

A person on our team, from the sources in the review, with a citation on every claim. You check the facts and approve in writing. You do not supply the wording.

Sometimes. It depends on the reviewer’s reason, which we read first. “Declined” usually means fixable problems. “Rejected” means the subject was judged unsuitable. A page removed at a deletion discussion needs those reasons answered before anyone tries again. Our guide: why drafts are declined.

Yes, when the editor discloses it. The Wikimedia Terms of Use and the paid-contribution policy require paid editors to name their employer and client. We do that on our user pages and on the talk page of every article. Undisclosed paid editing is banned.

Yes. The disclosure rules require it, so your name appears on our editor’s user page and on the article’s talk page as our client. A confidentiality agreement does not change that. We tell every client before they pay. Your enquiry itself is private.

Wiki Authority Group is the trading name of Wiki Authority LLC, a Missouri limited liability company, file number LC014770442. Our team works from Tomball, Texas; Voluntari, Romania; and Dubai. Check us shows how to verify the record.

Yes. Ask which accounts will do your work and we tell you, so you can read their disclosures and edit history yourself. We do not list account names on this site.

The source review is free. Every other fee is fixed and quoted in writing once the review shows which service fits. There is no hourly billing and nothing is due before the review.

A start payment, a payment when you approve the draft in writing, and the balance. The larger part of the fee is billed only after the page is live. Work on an existing article is billed in stages, set out in your written quote. The refund rule is part of the terms and is the same for every client.

If we can fix the reviewer’s reason, we fix it and resubmit at no extra charge, as long as each resubmission carries a real improvement. If nothing more can be improved, we tell you in writing and stop, and the final stage is not billed. What is returned in each case is set out in the refund rule, which we link rather than paraphrase.

You do not have to. Wikipedia charges nothing and volunteers help for free. What we charge for is the research, a hand-written neutral draft, a disclosed process and reporting. The money never buys an outcome.

No one can. Volunteer editors decide, and any article can be nominated for deletion by any editor at any time. A guarantee is the first sign of a scam.

Editors discuss it against policy, usually for at least a week. It is not a vote. We write the response plan and, where your package includes it, take part as disclosed editors. Nobody should recruit friends to comment.

No. Nobody owns an article, pages cannot be locked to a preferred version, and accurate, well-sourced negative material stays. Where a claim about a living person is wrong or unsourced, we propose a correction on the talk page, with the source, and a volunteer decides.

New articles may not be indexed until a volunteer patrol reviews them or a waiting period passes. Wikipedia does not control search engines, and neither do we. We do not sell knowledge panels.

First, check whether a draft exists on Wikipedia at all; some firms never file one. Then send us whatever you have and we read it for free. Our guide on spotting a Wikipedia scam covers what can and cannot be recovered.