Thinking About a Wikipedia Page?

You can, but Wikipedia strongly discourages it. Writing about yourself is a conflict of interest, and self-authored drafts are held to closer scrutiny. The bigger issue is usually not who writes the page but whether enough independent coverage exists to support one at all.

Wikipedia looks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of you. In practice that means several substantial articles written about you by editorially independent publications, not by you, your company or a paid outlet. Our free assessment reviews exactly this.

There is no magic number. Two or three genuinely in-depth, independent pieces from reputable publications can outweigh fifty brief mentions, interviews or reprinted press releases. Depth, independence and reliability matter more than volume.

Sometimes. A publication's name is not enough on its own; what matters is the specific article. An independently reported profile in a national daily is a strong source, while a sponsored feature, a brand-initiative section or a paid contributor post from the same outlet generally is not. We evaluate each article individually.

No. Sponsored, paid, advertorial and partner content is not considered independent coverage, however prominent the outlet. Wikipedia editors are experienced at identifying it, and relying on it tends to damage a draft's credibility.

No, and you should be wary of anyone who does. Wikipedia is reviewed by independent volunteer editors whom no consultant controls. What we can do is assess eligibility honestly, source rigorously and draft to policy so that avoidable rejections don't happen.

First, we read the decline reasons and the draft's history. Rejections usually come down to insufficient independent sourcing or promotional tone. If the underlying sourcing problem can be solved, the draft can be reworked; if it cannot, resubmitting the same material will not help.

Only if the reasons for deletion no longer apply, typically because substantial new independent coverage has appeared since. Recreating a deleted article without new sourcing is likely to be deleted again and can make future attempts harder.

Yes, within Wikipedia's rules. Factual corrections and updates supported by reliable sources can be requested through the appropriate editorial channels with the conflict of interest disclosed. Unsourced or promotional changes will not be accepted regardless of who requests them.

An initial eligibility assessment is usually completed within one business day. Research and drafting for an eligible subject typically take a few weeks, and the review stage on Wikipedia itself is controlled by volunteer editors and can vary from days to several months.

Anything that can be verified in reliable, published sources and is written neutrally: career history, notable work, recognition and significant developments. Unverifiable claims, marketing language and content that exists only on your own website or social media cannot be included.

Yes. If reliable sources have reported on controversies or criticism, Wikipedia's neutrality policy allows, and sometimes requires, that they be summarised fairly. A Wikipedia article is not a marketing asset; that is worth weighing before you pursue one.

Articles are deleted only when they fail Wikipedia's own policies, most commonly notability. A subject cannot simply request removal of an accurate, well-sourced article about themselves. Where an article does have genuine policy problems, there are legitimate processes to raise them.

Yes. We provide white-label eligibility assessments, source research, drafting and policy guidance so agencies can advise their clients accurately. Confidentiality is standard.

No. WikiBharat is an independent consultancy with no affiliation to, endorsement by, or connection with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.