Nine out of ten rejected Wikipedia drafts have nothing to do with grammar or formatting. The real reason is notability: Wikipedia only accepts businesses that already have solid, independent coverage from real news sources, not internal write-ups or paid features. Skip that check, and the draft gets declined before an editor even reads the writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This guide breaks down what actually gets a business page approved, from checking eligibility to submitting the draft correctly. Nothing here promises automatic approval. It’s a practical walkthrough of what Wikipedia’s editors look for and how to prepare a draft that has a real shot at passing review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wikipedia doesn’t approve a business page because the company exists or has a website. It approves pages for businesses that already have sustained, independent coverage from real journalists, not internal announcements. This single requirement, known as WP:NCORP, decides most outcomes before the writing even starts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Independent news coverage where a reporter chose to write about the business on their own, not because a press release asked them to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Funding announcements, “About Us”-style write-ups, sponsored content, and routine hires or product launches don’t count, even when they run in major outlets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before drafting anything, it’s worth checking whether your current coverage actually meets this bar. Wikipedia notability assessment services in Canada<\/a> can help confirm this early, so the draft isn’t built on sources that won’t hold up during review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most drafts fail here, not because sources are missing, but because the wrong kind got collected. Editors look for 3 to 5 pieces of in-depth, independent coverage from outlets with real editorial standards, not a folder full of mentions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A single paragraph mentioning the business isn’t enough. Sources need to cover the company in real detail, not just list its name alongside others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the writing sounds like it came from the company itself, it probably did. Editors watch for this closely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once the list is solid, the rest of the draft gets easier to defend during review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Founders, employees, and PR reps aren’t barred from Wikipedia, but writing about your own business directly is strongly discouraged and often backfires. This is called a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia expects it to be handled a specific way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you’re connected to the business in any way, say so on your Wikipedia account before submitting anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pages published directly by someone with a conflict of interest get flagged fast, and often deleted before anyone else reads them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wikipedia articles are written in third person and stick strictly to facts a source has already confirmed. Nothing gets added just because it sounds impressive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Words like “leading,” “revolutionary,” or “best-in-class” get flagged immediately. Editors call these peacock terms, and they’re one of the fastest ways to get a draft declined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a claim isn’t backed by one of your sources, it doesn’t belong in the draft, even if it’s true. Wikipedia isn’t asking for your side of the story. It’s asking for what’s already been independently verified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before submitting, read the draft as if someone else wrote it. If it sounds like marketing copy, an editor will notice too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wikipedia doesn’t let new pages go live directly. Every draft goes through Articles for Creation, known as AfC, where a volunteer editor reviews it before publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Create a Wikipedia account and submit your draft through the AfC queue instead of publishing it as a live article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Review timelines vary from a few weeks to several months, depending on how many volunteers are active at the time. There’s no way to speed this up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Avoid resubmitting the same draft repeatedly. If it gets declined, read the reviewer’s notes carefully before making changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\nBuild a Source List That Holds Up<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Reliability Check<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Source Type<\/strong><\/td> Counts Toward Notability?<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Press release<\/td> No<\/td><\/tr> Paid or sponsored feature<\/td> No<\/td><\/tr> Funding announcement<\/td> No<\/td><\/tr> Independent journalism<\/td> Yes<\/td><\/tr> Trade magazine (staff-written)<\/td> Yes<\/td><\/tr> Interview-only piece<\/td> No<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Aim for Depth<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Check the Byline<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Avoid Writing It Yourself<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Declare the Connection <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Steps to Follow<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why It Matters <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Write Like an Encyclopedia, Not an Ad<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Drop the Sales Words<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Only Say What Sources Say<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Read It Back Objectively<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Submit Through the Draft Review Process<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Set Up First<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Expect a Wait<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
While You Wait<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n