Studio Scribis

“Can you get us a Wikipedia page?” It’s probably the question I’ve been asked most by clients this year.

A year ago, almost nobody asked.

Today, it’s one of the first things brands mention when they start thinking about AI visibility. And it has to go with how people search for information.

Here’s a screenshot as proof.

After helping companies through the Wikipedia process, being asked to wait for months for a review, and getting multiple unreasonable rejections, I’ve now come to the conclusion that:

Most brands shouldn’t be trying to get a Wikipedia page.

Why everyone suddenly wants a Wikipedia page

Same reason as they want a Reddit page, really.

Instead of going to Google and getting a list of 10 articles they need to click and read, people turn to AI chatbots who give them a summarized answer. And Wikipedia is one of the biggest sources feeding those AI-generated answers.

A review of over 680 million citations across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews found that Wikipedia has a roughly 26-48% share of ChatGPT’s top 10 citations. In 2026, that’s second only to Reddit, which has a 40% share in AI engine citations.

For a lot of questions related to brands, a Wikipedia page is the most important source, alongside a corporate website. So it makes sense that brands want to get their page.

Source: The AI Citation Source Index 2026

Here’s my honest experience writing Wikipedia pages

Is having a Wikipedia page worth it?

For most brands, no. It’s not worth the time, as you’re likely not going to have it approved. Even when a brand does qualify, you still can’t write it yourself. Conflict-of-interest rules mean self-written pages get flagged and reverted quickly. The actual process is finding a pre-approved Wikipedia editor to draft and submit the page on your behalf, then joining that same queue.

Does your brand qualify for a Wikipedia page?

Before you hire anyone or decide to start this process, actually read Wikipedia’s notability criteria for organizations and companies yourself. Most people who come to me for this end up declined for the same reason, they didn’t check whether they realistically have what it takes to qualify for a page.

For your page to pass the Wikipedia approval stage, the sources you used must meet all four Notability criteria:

• Significant – The article covers the subject entirely, and in a large portion, not just a brand mention.
• Independent – Written by an independent author that’s not related to your company (or paid by it).
• Reliable – Published by a large, reputable publication, and not by a blog, social media post, influencer, own company website, etc.
• Secondary – The source has to report on your company, not just publish your own words. A press release, interview transcript, or company filing doesn’t count toward this, even if a reputable outlet published it.

Remember these four key points. This is where most brands will get stuck and get their sources rejected.

Here’s the official Wikipedia table explaining the qualifying criteria

My problem with the Wikipedia criteria

I appreciate that Wikipedia published a chart explaining the common reasons why certain sources may get rejected. For example, looking at this table, you can understand why a New York Times article may meet 3/4 criteria, but fail on significance, if the subject is just mentioned in a single sentence. The entire article must be about your company to qualify.

But Wikipedia doesn’t give us crystal clear examples of sources that meet all four of these criteria.

Every time my article got rejected, I was directed to read and understand this table and asked to resubmit with sources that meet all these criteria.

However, you can find plenty of accepted Wikipedia pages for brands that only have two sources, and one of them is a company website or report.

It feels that the same principle doesn’t apply to everyone.

Some writers can get their pages approved, and others have no way to argue or contest when a page gets rejected because only one out of ten sources fails an ambiguous Notability criterion.

Why does my Wikipedia page keep getting rejected?

First, a terminology thing worth noting: Wikipedia doesn’t “reject” your draft, they “decline” it.

Reject would be a permanent action, and decline technically means you can still edit the draft and resubmit it indefinitely. In practice, that distinction doesn’t save you much time, since every resubmission goes back into the same queue and waits just as long as the first one did. Or in some cases, even longer.

How long does it take for a Wikipedia page to be reviewed?

In my experience, the review process takes anywhere from two weeks to four months. And just imagine that’s the average time you need to wait every time before you hear your page is declined.

Heartbreaking. And the wait itself is real.

As you can see in the screenshot below, my most recent submission is sitting unreviewed for three months. Reason given? Wikipedia’s own queue page tries to give us a hint: with several thousand pending submissions ahead of you (over 5,118 at last count) and no particular review order, three months or more is tnow the normal waiting time.

What is the most common reason for a Wikipedia page to be declined?

The reason I’ve seen most often is some version of “the subject doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria.” On my most recent submission (screenshot below), I noticed the wording has now changed to “doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion of organizations and companies.” A slightly different wording, but basically the same thing. I doubt people reviewing the page even know what this means.

That’s really my main frustration with the process: the bar is vague enough that it comes down to whichever random reviewer happens to pick up your draft that day, with no real way to appeal a specific reviewer’s judgment call.

Due to my own ethical beliefs, I’ve never considered trying to pay or influence my way around it, and I wouldn’t recommend anyone else do either. That’s not a shortcut; it’s a good way to get your brand’s page permanently flagged instead.

The part most brands don’t expect: you don’t control your Wikipedia page

One mistake I see constantly: brands assume that once they have a Wikipedia page, they get to control what stays on it. The truth is you don’t have any control on what’s written on a Wikipedia page, even if your company is the main subject.

Wikipedia works like an open-source, collectively written library.

This means that any editor can add new information, remove content, or rewrite your page at any point after it goes live, and you won’t get a notice when it happens. A Wikipedia page is not your own company profile page; but a page that belongs to the platform’s community, not to you.

That’s also part of why you can’t create your own brand’s page in the first place. The process requires hiring an independent Wikipedia editor to write it using publicly available information about your brand, not your internal talking points.

I had a client once who wanted certain details left out (specifically, anything about their sister companies) and wanted their PR campaigns and brand collaborations featured prominently instead.

That draft read like a press release, boasting about it’s founding father and not an independent, neutral piece, and got declined for exactly that reason. This is just a case when the client wanted to push their own narative, without understanding the purpose of a Wikipedia page.

Some people prefer learning the hard way, instead of listening to a writer’s advice.

My honest advice

Most brands don’t need a Wikipedia page. Unless you are an established brand, already have a real stack of independent coverage (excluding PR pieces), multiple articles about your brand or founder that you didn’t pay for, don’t spend the time chasing a Wikipedia page right now.

You’re very likely not to pass the Notability criteria.

What I tell clients instead is to focus on actually building a strong website of their own. And then having interviews featured on reputable publications, guest posts, and analysis pieces. If you don’t have a website yet, that’s step one, long before Wikipedia is even worth a conversation.

The bottom line

So, should you chase a Wikipedia page? For most brands right now, no, not until you’ve genuinely earned the coverage that would make you qualify for one. Build the brand reputation first, and the Wikipedia page, if it ever makes sense, comes second.