How to create a Wikipedia page for yourself

This guide explains how to create a Wikipedia page for yourself, step by step: from the notability self-check through the Articles for Creation review to what you should do if your draft is declined. It assumes you have already decided to attempt it. If you are still weighing whether writing about yourself is allowed and sensible in the first place, read our separate article on whether you can create a Wikipedia page about yourself first — this page covers the process, that page covers the decision.

One expectation to set before the first step: no one, including any agency, can guarantee that a Wikipedia page will be accepted or that it will stay online. Volunteer editors decide, based on sources. Everything below is aimed at giving a legitimate case the best possible presentation — not at forcing a weak case through.

Step 1: run a notability self-check

Every failed attempt to make a Wikipedia page for yourself traces back to the same point: skipping this step. Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects with notability — meaning significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of you. Before you write a single sentence, answer three questions honestly:

Have independent media written about you in depth? National newspapers, established trade press, broadcast journalism, academic reviews. "In depth" means the article is substantially about you — not a passing mention, not a quote you gave as an expert, not a listing.

Are those sources independent? Your own website, press releases, interviews where you supply all the content, sponsored articles and company profiles you paid for do not count. Independence means a journalist or author chose to cover you on their own editorial judgment.

Are there several of them, over time? One strong newspaper profile is rarely enough. Reviewers look for a pattern of coverage that shows sustained attention rather than a single news moment.

If the honest answer to any of these is no, stop here. Our article on Wikipedia's notability requirements explains the criteria in detail, including the specific standards for people. Building coverage first and attempting a page later is a slower route, but it is the only route that works.

Step 2: collect and order your sources

Assuming the self-check comes out positive, the next step in how to make a Wikipedia page for yourself is administrative rather than creative: gather every independent source that covers you, and organize the list before you draft anything.

For each source, record the publication, author, date, title and a link or archive reference. Then sort them into three groups:

Primary evidence of notability. Substantial, independent coverage in reliable publications. These sources carry the article. Aim for at least three to five.

Supporting references. Sources that verify individual facts — a prize, a position, a publication date — without being substantial coverage in themselves. Useful, but they do not establish notability.

Unusable material. Your own site, LinkedIn, press releases, interviews, paid placements. Set these aside. Citing them as if they were independent coverage is the fastest way to signal to a reviewer that the case is thin.

A practical rule: every claim in your eventual draft should be traceable to a source in the first two groups. If a fact about your career exists only in your own materials, it probably does not belong in the article.

Step 3: create an account and set up your user page

You can technically edit Wikipedia without an account, but for this process an account is effectively required. Registration is free and takes a minute. Choose a neutral username — your own name is acceptable; a company name is not, and accounts with promotional usernames are routinely blocked.

Then set up your user page, the personal page attached to your account. This is where the first formal disclosure happens, which brings us to the step most people skip.

Step 4: disclose your conflict of interest

Writing about yourself is the textbook definition of a conflict of interest (COI) on Wikipedia. The guideline does not forbid it, but it expects transparency: state on your user page that you intend to write about yourself, and repeat that disclosure when you submit your draft. A single sentence suffices — "I am the subject of the draft [name] and have a conflict of interest."

If money is involved anywhere — you hire a writer, an employee drafts it, an agency handles it — the requirements become stricter. Wikipedia's terms of use make paid-editing disclosure mandatory: whoever edits for compensation must disclose their employer, client and affiliation. This applies to you if someone pays you to write, and it applies to anyone you pay. Reputable professionals disclose this openly; any provider who promises to work undisclosed is proposing a violation of the terms of use, and pages created that way are deleted once discovered — often along with a public record linking your name to the attempt.

Disclosure feels counterintuitive when your goal is a neutral encyclopedia entry. In practice it works in your favor: reviewers treat disclosed COI drafts as a normal part of the process, while undisclosed autobiography that surfaces later poisons every future attempt.

Step 5: write the draft through Articles for Creation

Do not create your article directly in the encyclopedia. As a conflicted author, the correct route is Articles for Creation (AfC): you write a draft in a separate draft space, submit it, and an experienced volunteer reviewer decides whether it is accepted into the encyclopedia. AfC exists precisely for situations like this — it gives you feedback instead of summary deletion.

When drafting, the discipline is stylistic as much as factual:

Write in the third person, neutrally. The test is simple: could a stranger with no stake in your reputation have written this sentence from the sources alone? Words like "leading", "renowned" and "innovative" fail that test and mark the draft as promotional.

Follow the sources, not your CV. The article should reflect what independent publications found worth writing about you — which is often narrower than what you consider important. Achievements no independent source has covered stay out, however significant they feel.

Cite as you go. Every substantive statement gets an inline reference to one of the sources from step 2. A draft with ten well-chosen references beats a draft with forty padded ones.

Keep it short. A modest, well-sourced article of a few paragraphs is far more likely to be accepted than an exhaustive profile. Length can grow later, added by others, as coverage grows.

Step 6: submit and wait for review

When the draft is ready, submit it for review with the AfC template. Then comes the part nobody enjoys: waiting. Review times fluctuate with the backlog; some drafts are reviewed within days, but several weeks to a few months is normal. There is no paid fast lane, and asking individual reviewers to hurry is generally counterproductive.

Use the waiting period sensibly. Do not edit other articles to insert links to yourself, and do not create the page directly in the main encyclopedia out of impatience — reviewers notice, and the shortcut converts a pending draft into a deletion discussion. If new independent coverage appears while you wait, add it to the draft; that is the one form of impatience that helps.

Step 7: if the draft is declined

Many first submissions are declined, and a decline is feedback, not a verdict. The reviewer states a reason, and the reason determines your next move:

Declined for tone. The sources are adequate but the text reads as promotional. This is fixable: strip adjectives, cut unsourced claims, restructure around what the sources actually say, and resubmit.

Declined for sourcing. The reviewer judges the coverage insufficient for notability. This is not fixable by rewriting. Resubmitting the same draft with cosmetic changes leads to repeated declines and, eventually, a rejection that closes the door. The honest response is to pause, let your public profile develop, and return when substantial new coverage exists — which may take years.

Declined repeatedly. If you have resubmitted more than twice without acceptance, stop and reassess the case fundamentally, ideally with someone who has no stake in the outcome. Persistence beyond this point tends to create a visible history of rejected autobiography that future reviewers will find.

Doing it yourself versus getting help

Everything above is achievable without help, and for straightforward cases with strong sources, doing it yourself is a reasonable choice. The honest difficulty is not the mechanics — it is judgment: assessing your own notability objectively, and writing about yourself without the promotional undertone that you, as the subject, cannot easily see. Those two skills are exactly where self-written pages fail.

Professional support does not change the rules. An experienced editor works through the same AfC process, under the same mandatory paid-editing disclosure, with the same absence of guarantees. What changes is the quality of the judgment: an independent assessment of whether the case is viable before any work starts, and a draft written by someone who is not emotionally attached to the subject. We compare both routes candidly in our article on doing it yourself versus hiring a specialist, and our broader guide on how to get a Wikipedia page covers the process from the perspective of any subject, not only autobiography.

Whichever route you choose, the sequence of this guide holds. Notability first, sources second, disclosure always, AfC as the route in, and patience through review. That is, in full, how to get a Wikipedia page about yourself without damaging the reputation the page is meant to reflect.

Frequently asked questions