Someone asks you to look into a Wikipedia page for a founder, an executive, an academic, or a relative who has passed away. Or you are researching the process on behalf of a client. That question, "how do I create a Wikipedia page for a person," is different from creating a page for yourself. The notability standard is the same, but the way you gather sources, disclose your connection to the subject, and navigate the community review changes once the subject is someone other than the person writing.
What "for a person" means on Wikipedia
A Wikipedia biography is not a profile page and not a résumé. It is a neutral, third-person summary of what independent, reliable publications have already written about someone. The article exists because the subject has attracted sustained attention from journalists, academics, or other qualified observers, not because the subject or a representative decided the person deserves one. This distinction matters from the first step, because it determines what kind of research actually moves a case forward.
Who typically needs this
In practice, requests to create a page for a person come from a fairly narrow set of situations: a founder or executive whose company has grown into significant press coverage, an academic with a body of cited research, an author with reviewed publications, a public figure entering a new role, or a family member documenting the life of someone who has died. In each case, the person requesting the page is usually not the subject, which is precisely where the disclosure obligations below start to apply.
The notability threshold before you start
Before any drafting begins, the subject needs to clear Wikipedia's general notability guideline: significant coverage, in multiple sources, that are both independent of the subject and editorially reliable. A short company profile in a trade newsletter, a quoted comment in a news article, or a listing in a database does not count as significant coverage. A detailed profile in a national newspaper, an in-depth feature, or a peer-reviewed academic citation record does. See our full breakdown in Wikipedia notability per sector for the concrete thresholds that apply to entrepreneurs, academics, authors, and organizations.
If this threshold is not yet met, no amount of careful writing changes the outcome. A page built on borderline sourcing is either declined at review or deleted after publication, and a declined or deleted history follows the subject into any future attempt.
Not sure whether the subject qualifies?
Request a confidential assessment — within 24 hours an honest judgment on whether the person meets Wikipedia's notability standard.
Request a confidential assessmentTwo realistic routes
There are two routes that actually work. First, you or the subject can go through the volunteer process directly: create an account, draft the article through Articles for Creation, disclose any connection to the subject, and submit it for review by a volunteer editor. This route costs nothing beyond time, but it requires understanding Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality rules well enough to survive review, and the review queue can take weeks.
Second, you can engage an independent editor who researches the case, drafts the article, and manages the submission and any community feedback. This is the route most people choose once they realize how much the sourcing research and neutral-tone drafting demand, particularly for a subject with a complex public record. See what a Wikipedia consultant does and how to choose a Wikipedia page creation service if you are weighing this option, and what a Wikipedia page costs for how pricing is structured. If you are instead the subject and want to handle it yourself, our guide on creating a Wikipedia page for yourself walks through that specific, self-authored version of the process.
Conflict of interest — mandatory disclosure
Whenever you have a connection to the subject, whether as an employee, a family member, a hired writer, or anyone being compensated for the work, that connection must be disclosed. This applies under the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use for paid contributions and under the community's conflict-of-interest guideline for unpaid but connected contributions, such as writing about a relative. Disclosure is made on the editor's user page and referenced on the article's talk page before or alongside the edit. Our detailed explanation is in conflict of interest on Wikipedia.
Skipping disclosure is not a minor procedural gap. Reviewers and community members actively look for undisclosed connections, and once a connection surfaces after the fact, the article is treated with far more suspicion than if it had been transparent from the start. Disclosure protects the subject's page, not just the editor.
Want an independent editor to handle disclosure and drafting?
Independent editors at wikipediapaginamaken.nl draft, disclose, and submit on your behalf, with an honest qualification up front and no placement guarantee.
See our approachSources you need to gather
Before drafting a single sentence, collect every piece of independent secondary coverage that exists about the subject: newspaper and magazine features, investigative or profile journalism, academic citations, books from established publishers, and reputable industry press with editorial standards. Press releases, the subject's own website or LinkedIn profile, interviews where the subject speaks in their own words, and social media posts do not establish notability, though they can support minor factual details once notability is already demonstrated through independent sources. Our full source-quality breakdown is in Wikipedia sources — what counts?.
For a person who has died, obituaries in major outlets and retrospective coverage often become the strongest sources, since they tend to summarize a career or life's work in one place with editorial oversight.
Step-by-step process
1. Confirm notability first. Gather the strongest three to five independent sources before committing further time. If they do not exist, the process stops here, and that is a legitimate, honest outcome rather than a failure.
2. Build a complete source file. Organize every citation with publication, date, and the specific claim it supports. This becomes the backbone of the article and the reference list.
3. Draft in neutral, encyclopedic tone. Every claim needs a citation, achievements are described factually rather than promotionally, and criticism or controversy covered by reliable sources is included rather than omitted.
4. Disclose the connection. Before or alongside submission, post the required conflict-of-interest or paid-editing disclosure.
5. Submit through Articles for Creation. This routes the draft to a volunteer reviewer rather than publishing it directly, which is the appropriate path for anyone connected to the subject.
6. Respond to review feedback. A first submission is often declined with specific notes on sourcing or tone. Address the notes directly and resubmit rather than arguing the point.
7. Publication and maintenance. Once accepted, the article becomes visible and editable by anyone. Ongoing accuracy, not ownership, is the expectation from that point forward.
Timeline
The Articles for Creation review queue typically runs several weeks, and it can extend longer during busy periods or when a draft needs more than one round of revision. There is no way to pay for a faster queue position or a guaranteed acceptance date, on Wikipedia itself or through any legitimate independent editor. What an experienced editor can shorten is the number of avoidable decline cycles, by getting sourcing and tone right on the first submission.
Common mistakes when writing about someone else
The most frequent failure is promotional language carried over from a bio, press kit, or LinkedIn summary, which reviewers flag immediately as inconsistent with neutral tone. Close behind is relying on primary sources, the subject's own website, or an interview, none of which establish notability on their own. Omitting the conflict-of-interest disclosure is a third common and avoidable mistake, since it undermines an otherwise well-sourced draft. Finally, treating a first decline as final rather than as specific, addressable feedback causes many legitimate cases to stall unnecessarily.