How to Create a Brand Wikipedia Page in 2025 (and Get Approved)
Aug 20, 2025
Thejaswani
Sr. Growth Marketing Manager
How to Create a Brand Wikipedia Page in 2025 (and Get Approved)
Intro:
A Wikipedia page is no longer just an online badge of honor. It’s a serious credibility marker, a trust signal for search engines, and now a crucial component in AI ecosystems. Whether you're running a SaaS startup, a marketing agency, or any other brand, a well-constructed Wikipedia presence can be one of your most powerful tools for visibility and authority.
According to Radix’s analysis of over 250,000 citations, Wikipedia ranks as the second most influential domain in boosting brand visibility — a signal that no serious brand should overlook. In another internal study, SaaS brands with a Wikipedia page saw over a 25% uplift in visibility on platforms like ChatGPT, cementing its strategic value in the age of generative AI.
"Wikipedia is not a place for original thought but where you aggregate the facts and consolidate what has already been published elsewhere." — Search Engine Land
But while the benefits are tempting, getting a Wikipedia page approved isn’t easy. The platform has strong standards around neutrality, sourcing, and relevance. This guide breaks it all down: why a page matters, how to build one step by step, and why it’s especially important for startups navigating the 2025 digital landscape.
Why Does Wikipedia Matters in 2025?
High Search Visibility – Wikipedia consistently ranks at the top of search results. Having a page ensures your brand is represented in knowledge panels, search snippets, and discovery pathways.
Trusted by LLMs – AI models like ChatGPT and Gemini are trained heavily on Wikipedia. If you want your brand to appear in LLM-generated answers, Wikipedia is a key entry point.
E-E-A-T & Credibility – A page signals authority and trustworthiness, which matters to search engines, analysts, journalists, investors, and customers.
Neutral Information Source – Instead of directing people only to your website, a Wikipedia entry serves as a balanced, third-party reference that reduces skepticism.
What Are The Requirements You Must Meet to Create a Wikipedia Page?
Before even drafting a wikipedia page, check whether the brand qualifies:
Notability: The brand must be covered in multiple reliable, independent sources. A TechCrunch article, Forbes feature, or detailed industry analysis counts; a press release or company blog does not.
Verifiability: Every statement must be backed by a reliable source. If it cannot be cited, it does not belong in the article.
Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The tone must be factual and balanced. Wikipedia rejects anything that reads like PR or advertising.
Conflict of Interest (COI): If you are affiliated with the brand, you must disclose it and submit through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, where independent editors review your draft.
Step-by-Step Guide: How to Create a Brand Wikipedia Page?
Creating a brand page on Wikipedia can feel overwhelming, but when you break it into steps and focus on meeting Wikipedia’s standards, it becomes much clearer. The goal is not just to create a page but to ensure it gets approved and stands the test of time.
Here’s a full roadmap (What to do, what to avoid, and the small things companies usually miss):
0) Quick rule of thumb (before you start)
If you can’t produce 4–6 solid, independent articles about the brand, don’t start the page yet. Build coverage first.
If you’re affiliated or paid, you must disclose and use the AfC (Articles for Creation) path.
1) Prove notability (the #1 approval factor)
What to do
Collect 4–6+ independent, in-depth sources about the brand (not just mentions). Think reputable newspapers, magazines, respected trade publications, industry analyst reports, academic/press books.
Prefer features, profiles, product reviews, analyst writeups. Passing mentions or press reprints don’t count toward notability.
Archive every source (Wayback Machine or publisher archives) to prevent link rot.
What to avoid
One of the biggest mistakes companies make when drafting their first Wikipedia page is relying on the wrong kind of sources. On the surface, things like a press release on Business Wire or a listing on Crunchbase might feel credible. But for Wikipedia, they don’t count.
Here’s what you should not use:
Press releases – no matter how big the distribution channel, they’re still your own announcement.
Your own website or blog – anything you wrote about yourself is automatically biased.
Investor decks or whitepapers – they’re internal documents, not independent coverage.
Sponsored or paid articles – even if they appear in a well-known publication, Wikipedia editors will flag them.
Affiliate or SEO blogs – their goal is traffic, not editorial depth.
Directories and listings – G2, Crunchbase, Product Hunt, AppSumo and similar platforms don’t establish notability.
Also watch out for circular sourcing. This is when one article cites your press release, and another article cites the first article. On the surface it looks like “multiple references,” but in reality they all trace back to your own PR. Wikipedia editors are quick to catch this.
Commonly missed
Depth matters: two lines in a roundup ≠ coverage. Aim for articles primarily about the brand.
Non-English is fine: use reliable sources in any language; add
|language=in the citation.
2) Plan the topic and title correctly
What to do
Use the common name customers/journalists use (WP:COMMONNAME).
If there are namesakes, prepare a parenthetical disambiguator:
BrandName (software)/BrandName (company).Scope the article clearly: company vs. product. If the product is notable on its own, it can be a separate page.
What to avoid
Don’t put trademarks, slogans, or symbols in your page title — things like ™, ®, or writing the whole brand in ALL CAPS. Wikipedia follows normal capitalization rules (see WP:TITLECASE).
Also avoid stuffing keywords into the title. The title should simply be the brand or company name, nothing more.
Commonly missed
Disambiguation check: Before you even start drafting, search Wikipedia to see if your brand name is already taken. This quick check saves you from running into collisions later. If you skip it, there’s a good chance your page will get renamed or moved after submission — and that’s messy to fix.
3) Set up your account and disclosures
What to do
Create a personal account (not the brand name).
Make a few good-faith edits on unrelated topics to learn basics and build trust.
If you have a conflict of interest (COI) or are paid, disclose on your User page and the draft Talk page. Then use AfC for review.
What to avoid
Don’t create the article directly in Wikipedia’s mainspace if you’re connected to the brand — that almost always backfires. And never try to hide a paid or conflict-of-interest role. Reviewers spot that quickly, and it can hurt the chances of approval.
Commonly missed
Use the {{request edit}} template on the Talk page for future changes if you’re COI.
4) Build your draft in Sandbox / Draft space
What to do
Start in
User:YourName/sandboxor directly in Draft: space via AfC.Adopt a standard structure (modeled on well-kept company/software pages):
Lead: 2–3 sentences summarizing what the brand is, where it’s based, what it does. Neutral, no hype.
History: founding, timeline, funding, key milestones (each with sources).
Products/Services: concise, function-focused summaries (with independent coverage where possible).
Reception/Recognition: analyst coverage, notable awards as reported independently.
See also: a couple of relevant Wikipedia links.
References:
<ref>inline citations +{{reflist}}.External links: typically only the official site.
Categories: 3–5 existing categories that fit (industry, location, year).
Add templates at top while drafting:
{{Short description|Brief neutral summary}}{{Draft topics|business-and-economics|technology}}(if relevant){{AfC topic|org}}(if relevant)
What to avoid
Skip anything that sounds like marketing — product pitches, customer logos, pricing tables, roadmaps, testimonials, slogans, future goals, or OKRs. Also avoid turning the article into a long list of features. Keep it encyclopedic, neutral, and backed by reliable sources.
Commonly missed
MOS:TRADEMARK: drop ™/® in text.
Overlinking: link only the first occurrence of a concept; don’t link common terms or years.
Date style: choose DMY or MDY and stick to it; consider adding
{{Use dmy dates}}or{{Use mdy dates}}.
5) Write with a neutral, encyclopedic tone
What to do
Use factual verbs: launched, announced, raised, acquired, expanded.
Attribute opinions: According to [Source], …
Keep sentences short, specific, and cited.
What to avoid
Superlatives (“leading”, “best-in-class”), hype, comparisons, mission/vision copy.
Uncited claims, market share assertions, or “first/only” claims without strong independent sources.
Commonly missed
Close paraphrasing: don’t copy the phrasing of sources (including your own site). Rewrite in your own, neutral wording.
6) Cite correctly (inline, consistent, durable)
What to do
Place a
<ref>…</ref>immediately after the sentence it supports.Prefer templates:
{{cite news}},{{cite web}},{{cite journal}},{{cite book}},{{cite report}}.Include author, title, work/publisher, date, url, access-date. Add
|archive-url=and|archive-date=where possible.Use DOIs for journals/books when available.
Example
The company announced a new analytics suite in 2023.
<ref>{{cite news
|last=Smith |first=Alex
|title=Brand unveils analytics suite
|work=Tech Review
|date=12 June 2023
|url=https://example.com/article
|access-date=18 August 2025
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240601/https://example.com/article
|archive-date=1 June 2024
}}</ref>
What to avoid
Dropping raw URLs without titles or context.
“Via” affiliate links or tracking parameters.
Leaning too much on your own site or press releases — they’re primary, not independent.
Commonly missed
CITEVAR: pick one citation style and stick to it throughout.
Non-English sources: add
|language=xx(e.g.,|language=fr).
7) Add the infobox and categories correctly
What to do
Use the right infobox:
{{Infobox company}}or{{Infobox software}}.Keep it factual; most entries should be verifiable in the body or independent sources.
Use existing categories that fit — industry, geography, year founded — don’t invent new ones.
Company infobox snippet
{{Infobox company
| name = BrandName
| type = Private
| industry = Industry
| founded = {{start date and age|2019}}
| founders = First Last; Second Last
| headquarters = City, Country
| products = Product A, Product B
| website = {{URL|https://www.brand.com}}
}}
What to avoid
Don’t overload the infobox with details you can’t source.
Skip making up new categories — stick to the ones that already exist and actually fit your topic.
Commonly missed
{{start date and age}}for founded dates (helps consistency and maintenance).
8) Handle images and logos (licensing is strict)
What to do
Logo: Upload to English Wikipedia (not Commons) under non-free use with a complete Non-Free Use Rationale (NFCC). Minimal resolution, use only once (typically in the infobox).
Photos you own: Upload to Wikimedia Commons with CC BY-SA 4.0 (or compatible). You must hold the copyright or have documented permission (VRT if necessary).
Caption neutrally, no promotional banners.
What to avoid
Don’t upload the logo to Wikimedia Commons. It’ll get deleted—Commons only allows freely licensed images, not copyrighted logos.
Skip stock photos unless you have rock-solid proof they’re under a free license. “Royalty-free” ≠ “Wikipedia-free.”
Avoid spamming the logo everywhere. One infobox placement is enough.
Commonly missed
The non-free use rationale isn’t optional. You need to spell out why the logo is here, where it’s used, why it can’t be replaced, and that you’re using the smallest possible version. Miss this, and the file gets axed fast.
9) Pre-submission quality check (catch what reviewers catch)
Content & tone
No marketing language or puffery.
Lead summarizes the body; no contradictions.
Every paragraph has at least one inline citation, mostly independent.
No original research or synthesis.
Sourcing
At least 4–6 independent, in-depth sources remain after removing press/company links.
Links archived.
Non-English sources labeled with
|language=.
Style & structure
Consistent date style (DMY/MDY).
First mentions linked; no overlinking.
Infobox populated sensibly.
Only official site in External links.
3–5 appropriate existing categories.
Licensing
Logo uploaded with non-free rationale (English Wikipedia).
Any photos are genuinely free-licensed or owned.
10) Submit via Articles for Creation (AfC)
What to do
Keep the AfC submission line at the top (don’t remove or alter it).
Add a clear edit summary (“Neutral rewrite; added independent sources; structured per MOS; submitting for AfC review.”).
Add a short Talk page note outlining your sources and your COI disclosure (if applicable).
What to avoid
Don’t hit resubmit if you haven’t fixed what the reviewer flagged.
Don’t argue about tone—just back it up with sources and rewrite neutrally.
Commonly missed
Always reply on the draft’s Talk page with a quick note and diffs (the before/after links).
Show what you changed. Reviewers value traceability more than long explanations.
11) If declined: fix, don’t fight
Typical reasons & fixes
“Insufficient notability” → Add higher-quality independent coverage, trim unsourced/primary-sourced claims, remove weak sections.
“Promotional tone” → Replace adjectives with facts; attribute opinions; cut market claims without sources.
“Primary sourcing” → Swap company links for third-party reports.
“Copyvio/close paraphrase” → Rewrite from scratch; cite; run a copyvio check.
Resubmission
Summarize changes in edit summary and on Talk.
Don’t rush; submit once the issues are actually fixed.
12) After acceptance: maintain responsibly
What to do
Watchlist the page.
Update only when notable milestones are covered independently.
If COI, propose changes on Talk with sources and use
{{request edit}}.
What to avoid
Listing customers, pricing, roadmaps, or small updates that don’t matter in an encyclopedic sense.
Turning the page into a PR board, announcement feed, or SEO playground.
Commonly missed
Keep the same citation style the draft already uses. Don’t switch formats mid-way—follow CITEVAR.
If there’s a dispute, handle it on the Talk page. Point to policy and guidelines, not personal opinions.
13) When not to create the page (save time & risk)
Not every brand or product is ready for Wikipedia. The biggest mistake companies make is forcing a page too early, thinking it will help SEO or credibility, but without the right coverage it almost always gets rejected or deleted. Timing is everything—wait until you’ve built enough independent recognition before you try.
Coverage limited to press releases or the company’s own site doesn’t establish notability.
Mentions buried in low-quality blogs provide no depth.
Topics that are brand new and lack third-party analysis won’t meet the bar.
Articles drafted under marketing pressure almost always read promotional and get rejected.
It’s better to hold off and build meaningful coverage first. Once that foundation exists, drafting becomes smoother and far more likely to succeed.
Focus first on earning coverage; then draft.
Bonus: tiny details reviewers love (and many miss)
Archive links (
archive-url,archive-date) on news citations.Consistent capitalization (no random Caps Everywhere; see MOS:CAPS).
No list spam in “Recognition” (only notable awards covered independently).
Avoid year-only headings (“2023”, “2024”); use prose in History.
No “References” pasted as plain URLs—always use cite templates.
Lead without buzzwords; 2–3 sentences are enough for a new page.
No social links in External links (generally only the official website).
Use
{{authority control}}/ Wikidata linkage only if you know what you’re doing; optional for new brand pages.
Wikipedia Page Structure That Most Companies Follow
You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Based on Radix’s review of 100+ approved brand Wikipedia pages, here’s the structure most companies follow — and what reviewers expect to see:
Edit summary (when submitting):
Neutral, fully cited draft with independent sources; standard structure (Lead/History/Products/Recognition); COI disclosed; submitting via AfC for review.
Talk page note (reviewer-friendly):
== Note to reviewers ==
This draft follows WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. It cites multiple independent, reliable sources (news/analyst). Promotional language removed; structure mirrors comparable reference articles. I have a COI and will use {{request edit}} for future changes. Happy to adjust per your guidance.
Reference list:
== References ==
{{reflist}}
External links:
== External links ==
* {{Official website|https://www.example.com}}
Final sanity checklist (tick these before you click “Submit”)
4–6 independent, in-depth sources (archived): These are your lifeline. Without them, the draft is DOA. Archiving ensures links don’t rot.
Neutral tone; no hype; no customer lists/pricing: Wikipedia is allergic to marketing. Even one “leading” or “world’s first” can get you flagged.
Sections: Lead, History, Products/Services, Recognition, See also, References, External links, Categories.
Inline citations after every substantive claim: If there’s no footnote, reviewers will assume you made it up. Simple as that.
Infobox added; dates/capitalization consistent: Infobox is your brand’s ID card. Inconsistencies make it look sloppy and rushed.
Logo/images licensed correctly (or omitted): Nothing kills a draft faster than a copyright violation. If unsure, leave it out.
COI disclosed (if applicable); AfC submission line present: Reviewers respect honesty. Hiding your COI is worse than having one.
Brief edit summary + Talk note added: Think of this as leaving breadcrumbs for reviewers. It shows you know the process and respect their time.
Follow this exactly and you’ll avoid 95% of the pitfalls that cause rejections.
Why Wikipedia Now Matters More Than Ever for SEO and LLM Visibility
LLMs Prioritize Wikipedia – Wikipedia is one of the most important datasets for AI. If your brand is missing, you risk being left out of LLM-generated answers, recommendations, and comparisons.
AI Overviews & Featured Snippets – Google’s AI summaries often pull from Wikipedia. A page gives your brand a shot at inclusion.
Entity Recognition in Knowledge Graphs – A Wikipedia page connects your brand into Google’s Knowledge Graph, improving discoverability and accuracy.
Future-Proofing – As AI-driven search evolves, Wikipedia ensures your brand remains a recognized entity in multiple discovery ecosystems.
Why This Matters Most for Startups and SaaS
Leveling the Field Against Giants – Startups don’t have the same backlink strength or budget as enterprises. A Wikipedia page gives them instant credibility.
Building Buyer Trust in SaaS – B2B buyers want proof of legitimacy. A neutral Wikipedia entry reassures them.
Getting Into LLM Recommendations – When people ask AI tools “what are the top CRM platforms?” only notable companies with reliable references tend to show up.
Accelerating Analyst and Investor Recognition – Investors, analysts, and journalists often check Wikipedia. A page validates your market position.
Strengthening Employer Brand – Candidates look up companies before applying. A Wikipedia presence signals stability.
Wrapping Up
Creating a brand Wikipedia page isn’t about vanity. It’s about giving your story a fair, lasting place where people — and now even AI — can find you with trust. It takes patience, neutrality, and the right kind of coverage, but when it’s done right, it becomes a foundation you don’t have to rebuild again and again.
Fingers crossed for your journey — may your page get through, and may it stand the test of time.
