What Does “Requesting” a Wikipedia Article Mean?
Requesting a Wikipedia article means asking volunteer editors to create or review an article, either by listing the topic at Requested articles or by submitting a draft through Articles for Creation, rather than publishing it yourself.
Wikipedia has no sales team, application form or approval desk for companies. Articles are written and reviewed by volunteers under community rules, and those rules carry different weights. Wikipedia labels each project page with its status, and the difference matters: a policy is the strongest standard, a guideline is a best practice editors are expected to follow, and an essay, supplement or information page is advice that has not been adopted as policy or guideline. We give each page's label below as it appeared on the page on October 7, 2026.
| Page | Shortcut | Status as labelled | What it governs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notability (organizations and companies) | WP:NCORP, WP:ORG | Guideline (notability guideline) | Whether a company qualifies for its own article |
| Notability | WP:N, WP:GNG | Guideline (notability guideline) | The general test NCORP builds on |
| Conflict of interest | WP:COI | Guideline (behavioral guideline) | How people connected to a subject should edit |
| Paid-contribution disclosure | WP:PAID | Policy | Mandatory disclosure of paid editing |
| Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use | “Paid contributions without disclosure” | Foundation terms of use (binding on all users) | The legal disclosure requirement |
| Sockpuppetry | WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT | Policy | Multiple accounts and recruited editors |
| What Wikipedia is not | WP:NOT, WP:PROMO | Policy | Bans advertising and promotion |
| Writing articles with large language models | WP:LLM | Guideline (content guideline) | Bans AI-generated article text |
| Articles for creation | WP:AFC | Process page (no policy or guideline label) | Draft submission and review |
| Requested articles | WP:RA | Request list (no policy or guideline label); its header says the associated WikiProject is inactive | Listing topics for volunteers |
| Edit requests | WP:ER | Information page | Proposing changes to existing articles |
| Simple conflict of interest edit request | WP:COIREQ | Essay | How to format a COI edit request |
| Plain and simple conflict of interest guide | WP:PSCOI | Supplement to the COI guideline | Practical advice for connected editors |
One detail worth knowing: the NCORP page's one-line description calls it a “policy”, but the status banner on the page classifies it as a notability guideline. We use the banner.
How to Request a Wikipedia Article at a Glance
| Step | Action | Expected result |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Search Wikipedia for an existing article or redirect | You know whether to request a new article or an edit |
| 2 | Test each source against the four NCORP criteria | A list of qualifying sources, or a clear answer that the company is not yet notable |
| 3 | Register a personal account and disclose your connection or payment | A user page and talk-page disclosure that meet WP:COI and WP:PAID |
| 4 | Choose a route: Requested articles or an AfC draft | A request listed with sources, or a draft in the Draft namespace |
| 5 | Write the draft from independent sources, neutrally and without AI | A draft whose every claim is cited |
| 6 | Submit the draft for AfC review and wait | A yellow “Review waiting” box, then accepted, declined or rejected |
| 7 | For an existing article, file an {{edit COI}} request on its talk page | A volunteer accepts, declines or asks for more information |
| 8 | If the article or draft is nominated for deletion, respond in the discussion with sources | A consensus outcome you can act on |
Time: preparation takes hours to days; reviews have no fixed timetable. The Edit requests page says a response “can take anywhere from a day to several months”, especially for COI requests, and AfC says only that a review “can take a while”. Tools: a web browser and a free Wikipedia account. Cost: Wikipedia charges nothing. Skill level: intermediate; you need to judge sources and write in a neutral encyclopedic style.
What You Need Before Starting
- A list of every article written about the company by journalists, authors or analysts with no connection to it, with links and dates.
- Separate lists of press releases, sponsored posts, interviews and directory listings, so you do not mistake them for qualifying sources.
- A decision on who will do the work, and whether that person is paid. Employees, owners, contractors and agencies all have a conflict of interest under WP:COI.
- An individual email address for a personal Wikipedia account (not a shared company login).
- Acceptance that the company will not control the article. The COI guideline says no one owns an article and that publicly available information you would rather leave out “will probably find its way there eventually.”
Step 1: Search Wikipedia for an Existing Article
Search Wikipedia for the company's current name, former names and common short name before requesting anything. The Requested articles instructions make this the first step, and note that articles generally use the most common name for a subject, which may not be the official one.
Why: the right route depends on the answer. If an article exists, you need an edit request (Step 7), not a new article. If the company is covered inside another article, such as a parent company or an industry article, Requested articles suggests leaving a comment on that article's talk page instead.
Process: use the Wikipedia search box, check spelling and capitalization variants, and also search the Draft namespace in case someone has already started a draft. Then search existing requests with the search box on the Requested articles page.
Expected result: one of three answers: no article, an existing article, or a mention inside another article. How to verify: a title search that returns a red link or a “create the page” prompt means no article exists at that title. Common mistake: requesting a new article when a deleted one existed. A previously deleted article usually means the sources were judged insufficient; read the deletion discussion first (see how Wikipedia decides to delete an article).
Step 2: Test Your Sources Against the NCORP Criteria
Evaluate each source on its own against the four criteria in WP:NCORP. The guideline says an individual source must meet all four to count, and there must be multiple such sources:
- Significant coverage “addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.”
- Completely independent of the company.
- Reliable, under Wikipedia's reliable-sources standard.
- Secondary: “primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.”
Why: NCORP is stricter than the general notability guideline on purpose. It says it puts “a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.”
What does not count, per the guideline's own lists:
- Routine coverage: funding rounds, acquisitions, hires and departures, product launches, quarterly results, trade-fair appearances.
- Brief mentions, quotes from company staff, and inclusion in “best of”, “top 100” or “fastest growing” lists (unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500).
- Press releases and “any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources” (churnalism).
- “Any paid or sponsored articles”, including pieces by non-staff contributors to Forbes, HuffPost, Entrepreneur.com, Inc.com and TechCrunch, which the guideline names.
- Anything the company publishes itself, patents, and directory or database entries.
Trade magazines are allowed only with care: NCORP says “there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability,” though feature stories from leading trade titles may count where independence is clear. Size is not a shortcut either: “No company or organization is considered inherently notable,” and even for companies listed on major stock exchanges, “notability is not automatic.”
How many is “multiple”? The guideline says it “is not a set number”, and that articles by the same journalist, or in the same publication, count as one source.
Expected result: a short list of sources that pass all four tests. How to verify: for each source, write one sentence on who wrote it, who published it and whether it contains independent analysis rather than company statements. Common mistake: counting volume. NCORP: “A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant.” For the kinds of coverage that do and do not move this test, see whether media coverage gets a company a Wikipedia article and what sources Wikipedia company articles actually cite.
If the company does not pass, stop here. NCORP says information about it may still be added to a relevant existing article if it is verifiable through independent sources and avoids self-promotion.
Step 3: Create a Personal Account and Disclose Your Connection
Register an individual Wikipedia account and declare your relationship to the company before you write or request anything.
Why: the conflict of interest guideline covers anyone editing about their employer, clients or “financial and other relationships”, and says editors with a COI “are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content.” If money is involved, disclosure is mandatory, not advisory.
Process:
- Account name: the plain and simple COI guide says your username should represent you, not the company, and that “multiple people may not ever use the same account.” It gives “John at Montane Corp” as an acceptable style.
- If you are paid (including as an employee whose job includes this, or through an agency): the Terms of Use require you to “disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation” on your user page, the talk page or in edit summaries. Wikipedia's paid-contribution disclosure policy adds that you must use a registered account, that “Non-disclosure agreements do not invalidate this requirement,” and that “There is no confidentiality for the employer, client, or affiliations.” The policy suggests the
{{paid}}template on your user page. - On talk pages: the COI guideline describes the
{{Connected contributor}}template, or{{Connected contributor (paid)}}for paid editors, placed at the top of the relevant talk page.
Expected result: a user page that states who you work for and, if paid, who is paying and for whom. How to verify: open your user page while logged out and confirm the disclosure is visible. Common mistake: assuming that an in-house marketing role is not “paid editing”. WP:PAID says users compensated for “any publicity efforts related to the subject” are deemed paid editors. For the full rules on hiring someone, see whether you can pay someone to edit Wikipedia.
Step 4: Choose Between Requested Articles and an AfC Draft
Choose one of the two routes Wikipedia offers for a new article. The plain and simple COI guide names both: “create a draft or request an article.”
- Requested articles: you list the company on the alphabetical sub-page of the Companies request list with a short, neutral description and references. The standard header on most other request lists asks for “Roughly three references and a short description”. The Companies list adds that all requests must contain reliable, independent, third-party sources, “Those without will be removed,” and that press releases, the company's website, social media and blogs do not qualify. Disclose your connection in the request.
- Articles for Creation: you (or a disclosed paid editor) write a draft and submit it for review by a volunteer. AfC says this process “must also be used by editors with a conflict of interest.”
Why it matters: Requested articles costs little effort, but its header warns that the associated WikiProject is inactive and that “Most requested articles will not be written.” AfC puts more work on you, but it says a submitted draft “will be reviewed eventually.”
Expected result: a request saved on the Companies list, or a page titled “Draft:” followed by the company name. How to verify: check your contributions list for the edit. Common mistake: creating the article directly in the main encyclopedia. New and unregistered accounts cannot do that, and the COI guideline says connected editors should not.
Step 5: Write the Draft From Independent Sources
Write the draft by summarizing what the qualifying sources say, and nothing else. The plain and simple COI guide calls this working “forwards”: find the reliable sources first, then summarize them, rather than writing the draft and then looking for citations.
Rules that apply to the text:
- No promotion. The policy What Wikipedia is not says information about companies “must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery” and that articles are “not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts.”
- No AI-written text. The LLM content guideline prohibits using large language models “to generate or rewrite article content”, allowing limited uses such as copyediting your own writing after human review. AfC repeats that “The usage of LLMs to generate article content is prohibited.”
- Cite everything. AfC: “Articles should reflect only what reliable sources have said about the topic.” Once notability is established by independent sources, NCORP allows primary sources, such as the company website, to verify some basic facts “with appropriate care.”
- Disclose on the draft's talk page. AfC asks COI editors to disclose there, and paid editors to disclose who is paying them.
- No categories. AfC says categories are “reserved for finished articles”; a reviewer adds them.
Expected result: a short, plain draft in which each sentence can be traced to a cited independent source. How to verify: remove every sentence that only the company could have supplied; if little remains, the sources are not yet sufficient. Common mistake: a long draft built on the company's own claims. The speedy deletion policy allows pages that are “exclusively promotional” to be deleted without discussion under criterion G11 (WP:CSD).
Step 6: Submit the Draft for Review and Wait
Submit the draft by clicking “Submit for review” on the draft. AfC says that if you do not see the button, you can use the AfC submission wizard or add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft in the source editor.
What happens next (Articles for creation):
- A yellow box reading “Review waiting, please be patient” confirms the submission.
- A reviewer may accept the draft and move it into the encyclopedia, decline it (fix the issues and resubmit), or reject it (“only if it is unlikely that they will ever meet those guidelines”; you will not see a submit button again).
- Drafts not edited for six months are routinely deleted under speedy deletion criterion G13, and can be restored on request.
Number of pending AfC drafts in each age category, English Wikipedia, October 10, 2026
Source: English Wikipedia, Category:AfC pending submissions by age, subcategory page counts via the MediaWiki API.
A one-day snapshot that changes hourly. The age categories for 7 weeks and older were empty; one draft had no age. Daily categories are summed into weeks by us. The parent category reported 2,904 pending drafts, against 2,910 across the age categories, because category counts update at different times.
Expected result: a review decision with a written reason. How to verify: the template at the top of the draft changes to show the outcome and reviewer comments. Common mistake: moving the draft into the main encyclopedia yourself. AfC warns this “may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedily-deleted or listed for Articles for Deletion, and repeated attempts may lead to consequences.” Connected editors also must not act as reviewers of their own drafts.
Step 7: Use Edit Requests for an Existing Article
Propose changes to an existing article on its talk page using the {{edit COI}} template, and let an uninvolved editor make them. The COI guideline says COI editors may propose changes this way “so that they can be peer-reviewed.”
Process, from the simple conflict of interest edit request essay (an essay, not a guideline, but the page the COI guideline points to):
- Open the article's Talk tab and start a new section.
- Put
{{edit COI}}on the first line, then state exactly what text to add, change or remove, and where. - Cite reliable sources for additions; for removals, explain why and give conflicting sources if relevant.
- Sign with four tildes (
~~~~) and publish. The essay also links an Edit Request Wizard.
The essay advises making requests concise, neutral and one change at a time, written in your own words without AI tools.
Expected result: a volunteer marks the request answered, declined or needing more information. How to verify: watch the talk page. Common mistake: expecting sourced criticism to be removed. The essay says removal of properly sourced, neutrally worded controversial information “is very rarely done.” The COI guideline does allow connected editors to fix spelling, remove obvious vandalism and repair broken links directly; anything else goes through a request. The Edit requests information page adds that if a COI request gets no response “even after six months,” treat it as declined.
Step 8: Respond to a Deletion Nomination With Sources
Respond to any deletion tag or discussion by adding independent sources and a short, disclosed comment, not by removing the tag or recruiting supporters.
Why: Wikipedia decides deletion by policy and consensus, not by the subject's wishes. The COI guideline says others “may also decide to delete the article or decide to keep it should you later request deletion.” The routes include speedy deletion for clear cases, proposed deletion that runs for seven days if no one objects, and Articles for Deletion discussions (Deletion policy). Our explainer on how Wikipedia decides to delete an article covers each route.
Process: read the stated reason, reply in the discussion with your disclosure, and list any qualifying sources the nominator missed. If an article is deleted, the plain and simple COI guide suggests first understanding why, then asking the deleting administrator, then using Requests for undeletion or Deletion review as appropriate.
Expected result: a closed discussion with a recorded outcome. How to verify: the discussion page shows the closing decision. Common mistake: asking colleagues to create accounts to vote “keep”. That is meatpuppetry, which the sockpuppetry policy prohibits.
How to Verify It Worked
- Disclosure: your user page shows your employer and client (paid) or your connection (unpaid), and the draft or article talk page carries a connected-contributor notice.
- Requested articles: your entry appears on the Companies list with references. It may stay there indefinitely; that is not a rejection.
- AfC: the draft shows the “Review waiting” box after submission, then a decision template. An accepted draft appears at the article title without the “Draft:” prefix.
- Edit requests: the request on the talk page is marked as answered, with the change visible in the article's history.
- Afterwards: if you also maintain a Wikidata item, check that it links to the new article; our guide to creating a Wikidata item for your company covers that separate process.
How to Choose a Route
| Situation | Recommended route | Why |
|---|---|---|
| No article; strong independent coverage; you can write neutrally | AfC draft, with disclosure | COI guideline says connected editors should use AfC; every submission is reviewed eventually |
| No article; good sources; no one to write it | Requested articles (Companies list) | Low effort, but most requests are never written |
| No article; coverage is mostly press releases, funding news or sponsored posts | Do not request yet | NCORP excludes these; a submission is likely to be declined |
| Article exists and has an error or is out of date | {{edit COI}} request on the talk page | The COI guideline's route for affected articles |
| Company is significant only within a parent or industry topic | Talk-page suggestion on that article | NCORP allows verifiable content in relevant articles |
| You want to hire help | A paid editor who discloses on-wiki | WP:PAID requires it; anyone offering a guarantee is a red flag |
Common Problems and Fixes
| Problem | Likely cause | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Draft declined for notability | Sources are routine, dependent or not in depth | Re-run Step 2; resubmit only with new qualifying sources |
| Draft declined as promotional | Puffery, unsourced claims, company-supplied detail | Cut to what independent sources say; use neutral wording |
| Draft rejected | Reviewer judged it unlikely ever to qualify | Wait for new independent coverage; AfC notes a topic “may later become notable” |
| Account blocked for its username | Name is the company's or implies shared use | Request a username change to an individual name |
| Requested article never written | The list relies on volunteers; the WikiProject is inactive | Write an AfC draft yourself, with disclosure |
| Edit request unanswered for months | Backlog of COI requests | Do not post reminders; after six months treat it as declined, then consider a smaller request |
| Draft deleted after six months | No edits for six months (G13) | Request restoration at the refund page linked from AfC |
What Not to Do
- Do not write or edit the article without disclosure. Consequence: WP:PAID says paid editors who do not disclose “are prohibited from editing”. The Terms of Use add that violations can be resolved in a binding “Marketing Company Mediation” at the Foundation's discretion. Correction: disclose first, then use AfC or edit requests.
- Do not use multiple accounts or recruit others. Consequence: the sockpuppetry policy lists blocks of all related accounts, bans and “on-project exposure of all accounts”. Correction: one person, one account, open discussion.
- Do not create a company or shared account. Consequence: the COI guideline says “The account is yours, not your employer's”, and the plain and simple COI guide says shared or company-named accounts are grounds for a block. Correction: individual accounts with disclosure.
- Do not pay anyone who guarantees an article. Consequence: the COI guideline says offers to guarantee a page will be saved from deletion “are always fraudulent”, and Wikipedia keeps a scam warning information page. Correction: ask any vendor for their Wikipedia username and check it for a paid-editing disclosure.
- Do not paste AI-generated text. Consequence: it breaches the LLM content guideline and AfC instructions. Correction: write in your own words from the sources.
- Do not bypass review. Consequence: moved back to draft, deleted or nominated for deletion. Correction: submit through AfC and wait.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I pay someone to get my company a Wikipedia article?
You can pay someone to write a draft, but you cannot pay for an article to be accepted. The paid editor must disclose their employer, client and affiliation under the Wikimedia Terms of Use and WP:PAID, should submit through Articles for Creation, and cannot guarantee an outcome. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline says offers to guarantee a page will be saved from deletion are always fraudulent.
How long does an Articles for Creation review take?
Wikipedia does not publish a fixed timetable. The Articles for creation page says only that getting a review can take a while but the draft will be reviewed eventually. Drafts left unedited for six months are routinely deleted under speedy deletion criterion G13 and can be restored on request.
Does a funding announcement or press release count toward notability?
No. The company notability guideline classes coverage of capital raising, acquisitions, hires and product launches as routine, and excludes press releases and material substantially based on them, even when an independent outlet publishes it.
Do Forbes or Entrepreneur contributor articles count as sources for notability?
Not when they are written by non-staff contributors. The company notability guideline names pieces by non-staff contributors to Forbes, HuffPost, Entrepreneur.com, Inc.com and TechCrunch among the dependent coverage that does not establish notability.
How many independent sources does a company need for Wikipedia?
There is no fixed number. The guideline requires multiple sources that each meet all four criteria (significant, independent, reliable, secondary) and says multiple is not a set number. Several articles from the same publication or the same journalist count as one source.
Is a publicly traded company automatically notable on Wikipedia?
No. The guideline says consensus has been that notability is not automatic for listed companies, although sufficient independent sources such as press coverage and analyst reports almost always exist for them.
Can I use ChatGPT or another AI tool to write the draft?
No. A content guideline adopted after a March 2026 community discussion prohibits using large language models to generate or rewrite article content, with narrow exceptions such as copyediting your own writing after human review. Articles for Creation and the COI edit request essay repeat the ban.
What is the difference between a declined and a rejected draft?
A declined draft does not yet meet Wikipedia's guidelines and can be improved and resubmitted. A rejected draft is one the reviewer considers unlikely ever to qualify, for example because the topic is not suitable or the draft is spam; the submit button is removed.
Can our company get negative information removed from its Wikipedia article?
Only through a disclosed edit request, and the information is unlikely to be removed if it is properly sourced and neutrally worded. The COI edit request essay says that kind of removal is very rarely done, and the COI guideline says the subject of an article does not own it.
Sources and Methodology
This guide is built from English Wikipedia project pages and the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, read on October 7, 2026 (we retrieved each page's current wikitext, which shows its status banner). Status labels are quoted as the pages displayed them that day; Wikipedia pages can be edited at any time, so check the live page before relying on a detail. We did not create a Wikipedia account, submit a draft or file an edit request for this guide, and we did not measure review times. Wikipedia publishes no acceptance rate or review time that we could cite.
- official English Wikipedia, Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:NCORP). Notability guideline. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Notability (WP:N). Notability guideline. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Conflict of interest (WP:COI). Behavioral guideline. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Paid-contribution disclosure (WP:PAID). Policy. Read October 7, 2026.
- official Wikimedia Foundation, Terms of Use, section 4, “Paid Contributions Without Disclosure”. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Articles for creation (WP:AFC). Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Requested articles and its Companies list. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Edit requests (WP:ER). Information page. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Simple conflict of interest edit request (WP:COIREQ). Essay. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (WP:PSCOI). Supplement. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK). Policy. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). Policy. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Writing articles with large language models (WP:LLM). Content guideline. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Speedy deletion (WP:CSD) and Deletion policy. Policies. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Scam warning (WP:SCAM). Information page. Read October 7, 2026.
- official English Wikipedia, Category:AfC pending submissions by age. Subcategory page counts retrieved through the MediaWiki API. Read October 10, 2026.