Notable — Wikipedia, done right
Wikipedia · done right

Find out whether you qualify for Wikipedia before you spend a dollar trying.

We score your press coverage/sources against the exact tests and policies Wikipedia's volunteer reviewers use, give you a straight verdict, and then guide you to a page that stays up. No guarantees, no ghostwriting, no games.

Get your Notability Report · from $399 See pages that stuck
200+clients since 2016
10 yrsediting inside Wikipedia
5+ yrsour rescued pages still live
100%disclosed, by-the-rules editing
Source matrix · sampleSubject: author & founder
SourceReliableIndependentIn depthCounts
Boston Herald, front page, 1998yesyesyesGNG
New York Times bylined articleyesyesyesGNG
Profiled in a trade magazine with named editor and fact-checking policiesyesyesyesGNG
NBC Today, guest expert, 2016yesyespartialBASIC
Crain's NY, Best Places to WorkyesyespartialBASIC
Book review, trade pressyesyesyesCREATIVE
Own company blognonoyes—
Press release pickuppartialnopartial—
Verdict: Ready5 qualifying sources · proceed to drafting
Why it matters

A Wikipedia page is the one credential you can't buy, write, or post.

Everything else about you online is something you published or influenced. A Wikipedia article is the opposite: a neutral summary that volunteers decided you'd earned, built only on what independent journalists wrote. That's exactly why it carries weight.

Search

It shows up before your own website does

Search for almost any notable person or company and the Wikipedia entry sits at or near the top, and feeds the knowledge panel on the right side of Google. For most subjects it becomes the first thing a prospect, reporter or recruiter reads about you.

AI answers

It's what the AI assistants may read first

ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google's AI Overviews lean heavily on Wikipedia when they describe a person or brand. If you don't have an entry, they improvise from whatever else is out there, or say nothing at all. A page gives them a neutral, sourced answer to repeat.

Credibility

Bookers, investors and editors use it as a credibility check shortcut

Speaker bureaus, conference programmers, journalists on deadline and investors doing diligence all check for a page. It's third-party proof that you're a public figure in your field rather than someone who says so, and it makes every other introduction shorter.

Durability

It compounds, and it outlasts everything else

Press fades off the front page in a week. A Wikipedia article keeps citing that press for years, gets updated as your career grows, and is linked from every other article that mentions you. It is the closest thing to a permanent public record.

The catch: only the real thing works.

The value comes entirely from the fact that you can't control it. A page that's promotional, thin on sources, or written by an undisclosed editor gets flagged, stripped or deleted, and a deleted page is harder to bring back than a page that never existed. That is why we check whether you qualify before anyone writes a word.

Why this exists

Most “Wikipedia page services” are selling something they can't deliver.

Wikipedia's own community newspaper investigated the paid-page network in early 2024. The numbers below are theirs, not ours.

<5%of customers who paid the network ever got an article
$750–$10K+charged up front, with “taxes” and “extras” added after
$500K–$1M+estimated taken from customers in a single year

Source: The Signpost, Disinformation report, 31 January 2024

How it works

Report first. Then the right path, and only the right path.

STEP 1

Notability Report

We pull every piece of coverage about you, including print archives and databases most people can't reach, and score each source against Wikipedia's notability tests: GNG, BASIC and other profession-specific guidelines such as CREATIVE, ACADEMIC, AUTHOR and more. You get a matrix, a verdict and a plan.

3–7 business days
STEP 2

One of three verdicts

Ready: enough qualifying sources exist today. Not yet: close, and the report names exactly what kind of coverage would get you there. Unlikely: we tell you plainly and you stop spending.

Honest answers, in writing
STEP 3

Ready-Now Page or Guided Path

Ready subjects move straight to a neutral, fully sourced draft submitted through Articles for Creation with our paid relationship disclosed. Not-yet subjects join a six-month program to build the coverage, then submit.

Disclosed · neutral · monitored
The product everyone starts with

Notability & Viability Report

Credible consultancies charge $500–$700 for a notability audit. Ours is more thorough and starts at $399, because an honest “not yet” is the most valuable thing we sell.

Snapshot
$399
For anyone curious whether a page is realistic right now.
  • Expert-reviewed scan of all existing coverage
  • Notability score and written verdict
  • Your three biggest gaps
  • Prior deletion history, if any
Delivered in 3 business days Buy Snapshot · $399
Most chosen
Full Report
$699
For authors, organizations, founders, executives, leaders and experts who want the complete picture before deciding.
  • Everything in Snapshot
  • Full source matrix: every source scored against GNG, BASIC and the profession-specific guidelines (CREATIVE, ACADEMIC, AUTHOR and more)
  • Searches of news, trade and print archives you can't access yourself
  • Your three strongest qualifying sources, identified
  • Written roadmap of the exact coverage still needed
  • 30-minute walkthrough call
Delivered in 7 business days Buy Full Report · $699
Report + Strategy
$999
For subjects who intend to get there and want the plan to do it.
  • Everything in Full Report
  • 60-minute strategy session with both partners
  • 90-day coverage plan: which outlets, which angles, which formats count
  • $500 credit toward Ready-Now Page or Guided Path
Delivered in 7 business days Buy Report + Strategy · $999

Enter it here and it's pre-filled at checkout, or add it on the payment page. Secure checkout by Stripe; every button above takes you straight there.

After the verdict

Two ways forward. The report tells you which one is yours.

Verdict: Ready
Ready-Now Page
$4,475flat · by conversation, not checkout
You already have the coverage. We do the work the right way.
  • Neutral, encyclopedic draft built only on qualifying sources
  • Submitted through Articles for Creation with our paid relationship disclosed
  • We answer every reviewer question until a decision is reached
  • Wikidata entry created
  • Six months of monitoring for vandalism and bad-faith edits
Reviewer queues typically run 4–12 weeks; we never promise a date Book a call about Ready-Now
Verdict: Not yet
Six-Month Guided Path
$2,000per month · $3,000 for Guided+ · by conversation
Close, but not there. We coach you to the coverage, then build the page.
  • Two coaching calls a month (weekly on Guided+)
  • A live source tracker: what counts, what doesn't, what's missing
  • Coaching on the kinds of stories, interviews and reviews that satisfy reviewers
  • Draft developed as sources land; disclosed submission when ready
  • Rescue work included if a draft is declined
  • Guided+: PR-angle coaching, Wikidata, 12 months of monitoring
Pause clause: if coverage stalls, the program pauses, not the billing meter Book a call about the Guided Path

Declined draft or deleted page already? That's the work we're best known for. It's quoted after a Full Report, from $2,500.

Once you're live
Page Insurance
$399per month for 6 months, then $99/mo · cancel anytime

Getting the page up is half the job. Wikipedia pages get edited by strangers, tagged by patrollers, and nominated for deletion years after they're accepted, usually when nobody's watching. Page Insurance means someone is always watching, and that someone knows the rules.

Insure my page · $399/mo
  • Round-the-clock monitoring of your article, its talk page and every edit, with alerts the moment anything changes
  • Immediate, policy-literate responses to any editor question, maintenance tag, or deletion nomination
  • Careful additions as your career produces new coverage: a new book, a major interview, an award, a role change, each proposed with disclosed edit requests and proper sources
  • Vandalism and inaccurate edits reverted through the proper channels, and bad-faith claims challenged on the record
  • Quarterly health report: what changed, what's cited, what new sources would strengthen the page
  • Direct line to both partners for anything reputation-related that touches the page

* Insurance ensures your page is monitored and the best plan of action is in place immediately. It does not imply a refund, but it includes recreation and resubmission once any deletion concerns have been addressed.

Case studies

Pages that stuck.

Two rescues other practitioners had walked away from, and the page one of our own founders needed.

Deletion discussion · company

Tata 1mg, rescued at a deletion discussion after repeated deletions

Deleted twice as advertising, moved back to draft three times. When the page was recreated in May 2021 it was nominated for deletion the same day, and one participant asked for the title to be locked. We helped the agency build a 20-source matrix, then listened to the strongest opposing editor and supplied exactly the kind of independent analysis he had asked for.

23 daysin the deletion discussion
5+ yrslive since, closed as “keep”
Live and indexed
Creation lock · company

Tejas Networks, revived after three deletions and an administrator lock

Deleted three times since 2006; in 2018 an administrator protected the title so it couldn't be created again. We showed that none of the earlier deletions had ever tested notability, put four independent sources in front of reviewers (Times of India, a Harvard Business School case, an ICRA ratings report, a published book chapter), and filed a deletion review.

2 daysfrom deletion review to publication
5+ yrslive since July 2021
Live and indexed
Deleted biography · individual

Dave Kerpen, rebuilt from the archives after a 2023 deletion

A page that had stood for twelve years was deleted in 2023. Rather than argue, we started over: 44 press clippings catalogued back to a 1998 Boston Herald front page, print archives pulled through library databases, every source scored, and a neutral draft submitted through Articles for Creation with the relationship disclosed. Accepted the following month.

44sources catalogued and scored
32 daysfrom submission to acceptance
Live, October 2026

“It overcomes the old reasons for deletions and has good-enough sources.”

The volunteer reviewer who accepted the Tejas Networks draft, 1 July 2021
Who you're working with

A Wikipedia specialist and a subject who's been through it.

Harsh Agarwal

Harsh Agarwal

CO-FOUNDER · TECHNICAL WIKIPEDIA STRATEGY

Harsh has spent more than a decade editing and creating pages inside Wikipedia. With a background in marketing and public relations and a track record in scientific research, he brings a rare blend of expertise to Wikipedia's nuanced policies.

He has worked with clients globally, including startups and established industry, nonprofits, politicians, actors, entrepreneurs and artists, across technology, finance, manufacturing and pharmaceuticals. The work spans first-time pages, declined drafts rescued after other practitioners walked away, and notability assessments that ended with him telling a paying client the honest answer was “not yet.” He has also worked alongside global PR agencies on client mandates, which taught him where traditional PR and Wikipedia diverge and converge. Harsh is a TEDx speaker, the author of three books, and an award-winning filmmaker.

Dave Kerpen

Dave Kerpen

CO-FOUNDER · GROWTH & CLIENT STRATEGY

Dave is a New York Times bestselling author (Likeable Social Media, The Art of People, Get Over Yourself), a serial entrepreneur with multiple exits including Likeable Media, and a global keynote speaker. He has appeared as a guest expert on NBC's Today, writes a column for Inc., and has built and sold companies that were named Crain's Best Places to Work.

He is also a client. After his own Wikipedia page was deleted in 2023, he went through this process as the subject: the archives, the scoring, the honest conversations about which sources count. That experience is why the Notability Report comes first, and why we would rather tell you “not yet” than take your money.

Our rules

What we do, and what we will never do.

We do

  • Disclose every paid relationship on Wikipedia, as its Terms of Use require
  • Submit new articles through Articles for Creation, never directly
  • Write neutral, encyclopedic text built only on independent sources
  • Propose changes to existing articles on the talk page for volunteer review
  • Tell you “not yet” or “unlikely” in writing when that's the answer
  • Monitor the page after it's live
  • In general, follow Wikipedia's policies and give you the right advice

We never

  • Guarantee approval, a timeline, or permanence
  • Edit under undisclosed or sockpuppet accounts
  • Remove accurate, well-sourced criticism
  • Claim any relationship with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation
  • Cold-contact anyone
  • Take a case the report says can't succeed
  • Tell you what you want to hear
Questions

Straight answers.

Can anyone get a Wikipedia page?

No. Wikipedia only keeps articles about subjects with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your own website, press releases, interviews you gave, and sponsored content don't count. The report exists to find out, before you spend anything else, whether enough independent coverage exists.

Can you guarantee my page will be approved?

No one can. Decisions are made by volunteer reviewers and editors, and anyone promising approval is either lying or planning to break Wikipedia's rules, which is how pages get deleted. What we can do is make sure every source is checked before a word is drafted, so your draft goes in with the strongest possible case.

Is paying for Wikipedia help even allowed?

Yes, as long as it's disclosed. Since 2014 Wikipedia's Terms of Use have required paid contributors to disclose who is paying them. We do, on every draft and every talk page. Undisclosed paid editing is what gets accounts banned and pages purged.

How long does it take?

The report takes 3–7 business days. Drafting takes a few weeks. The Articles for Creation review queue is run by volunteers and typically takes four to twelve weeks; it can be faster or slower, and nobody can promise a date. The Guided Path is six months because that's roughly how long it takes to earn new independent coverage.

My page was deleted. Can it come back?

Often, yes, but not by re-posting the old text. We read the deletion discussion, work out which objection actually decided it, and rebuild from sources that answer that objection. The Tejas Networks and Tata 1mg cases above are both examples.

What if the report says “unlikely”?

Then you've spent a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand, and you know exactly what would have to change. Some clients come back a year later with the coverage; some decide a Wikipedia page isn't the right goal. Either is a good outcome compared with paying a vendor who never tells you.

I already have a page. Can you just look after it?

Yes. Page Insurance is for subjects whose article is already live. We monitor it continuously, respond immediately to tags, questions or deletion nominations, and propose well-sourced additions as your coverage grows, all through disclosed edit requests. $399 a month for the first six months, then $99 a month; cancel anytime.

Who is this for?

Authors, keynote speakers, founders and executives, companies, nonprofits, artists and public figures. If you have been written about by journalists who don't work for you, the report is worth running.

Start here

Not sure which report? Ask us.

Reports are bought above with a card in about a minute. If you'd rather talk first, or you're interested in a Ready-Now Page or the Guided Path, book a free 15-minute fit call or send us your three best press links and we'll reply within one business day.

Book a free 15-minute fit call

hello@notablepages.com