What makes a Wikipedia agency fake?
A fake agency promises an outcome it does not control, or hides how it works. The honest ones disclose paid editing, assess notability first and explain what they cannot guarantee. The rest range from careless to fraudulent: ghost agencies that disappear after payment, operators whose undisclosed paid editing gets accounts banned, and recently registered domains advertising "Wikipedia page creation."
From a procurement deck the two kinds look alike, since both promise "a Wikipedia page about your company." They are different categories of risk. The Wikipedia Signpost's January 2024 report documents one such network, including a quoted chat in which a representative says there would be no mention that the article is paid.
1. Is there a real footprint behind the agency?
A real agency has a visible, checkable history. Look for a company page with named staff, a website older than the current sales cycle, writing that shows an understanding of WP:RS and WP:N, and independent press coverage. A single landing page, a free-mail contact address and no named team describe a ghost with nobody to hold accountable. Check the Wayback Machine for site history. Our own press page is public for the same reason: buyers should be able to read what third parties say.
2. Do the reviews read like one author?
Fabricated reviews follow patterns. The reviewer profiles are weeks old and have reviewed only one or two other businesses. The text is formulaic ("amazing service, highly recommend") with no detail about what was delivered. Many arrive in one short window.
Real reviews are messier: they name the deliverable, mention timing or the person they dealt with, and sometimes note friction. Search a distinctive phrase; if it appears verbatim on several profiles, it is a template. A review-site score is not evidence of legitimacy, because review platforms do not verify that the reviewer was a client.
3. Does the agency promise guaranteed approval?
Nobody can promise approval, because Wikipedia does not work that way. Drafts go through Articles for Creation (AfC), where independent volunteers apply WP:NCORP and WP:RS, and even a well-built draft can be declined or later deleted at Articles for Deletion (AfD). Anyone promising "100% approval" is either misleading you or planning to push a draft through with undisclosed accounts, which gets the page deleted.
Honest operators talk about prerequisites and probabilities: significant coverage, independent sources, reliable sources. Our guarantees page states what we cover (90 days of monitoring and an 80% refund if a published page cannot be defended after three attempts) and that publication itself is never promised.
4. Can you verify the case studies?
Ask for three live Wikipedia URLs published in the last six months. A real agency sends links, points to the editor account and walks you through the sources. You can verify the portfolio yourself: read the editor's user page, the edit history and the article's Talk page. Anonymous "a SaaS company we worked with" stories that cannot be linked cannot be checked.
5. Does the pricing make sense?
Be suspicious of prices that are far below or far above the market, and of any quote with no breakdown. Real work includes a source audit, drafting, reference formatting, review rounds and disclosure. A very low quote usually means undisclosed accounts, an inexperienced contractor or a scam. A very high one with no line items hides scope. Published prices let you compare: ours are on the pricing page, with English pages from €2,400 and a notability audit from €490.
6. Can the agency explain WP:NCORP, WP:COI and WP:RS?
A qualified agency can explain notability for companies in five minutes without notes. NCORP asks for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; "independent" means independent of the company and of its promotional content, so a guest column written by your own founder does not count. They should also describe how their editors disclose under WP:COI and the paid-editing terms.
Hand-waving, invented terminology or "our editors handle the policy side" are warning signs. An admission that they use anonymous accounts to avoid disclosure means the page is likely to be reversed.
7. Is the website and company real?
Check a postal address, a company registration you can look up in the relevant registry, named directors or founders, and a site without broken pages or stock-photo "team members." It sounds superficial, but editorial work demands attention to detail, and a careless business raises doubts about the work. Wikipedia reviewers also scrutinize drafts tied to agencies that look unreliable.
8. Is the sales process high-pressure?
Artificial scarcity is a warning. "One slot left this quarter" or "prices rise Friday" makes no sense for a multi-week editorial service. Pressure usually signals commission-driven sales, weak quality or a scam that wants payment before you research. A serious operator lets you take a week, sends documentation and respects your timeline.
9. How old is the domain?
Run the domain through a WHOIS lookup and the Wayback Machine. A domain registered a few months ago whose owner claims many years of experience is either a new operation posing as established or a rebrand after lost reputation. Cross-check with press mentions and staff profiles that predate the domain; fifteen minutes of checking usually settles it.
What five questions should you ask on a discovery call?
Ask every agency these five; competent ones answer in detail.
- "Show me three live Wikipedia URLs you published in the last six months."
- "Show me the editor's user page where they declare paid editing." Disclosure is non-negotiable.
- "What is your refund clause if the draft fails or is deleted?" A real clause names the trigger, the percentage and the timeline.
- "Walk me through WP:NCORP and what makes a source independent."
- "Which editor account submits the draft, and is the agency named in the disclosure?"
If three or more warning signs apply and the agency cannot answer these, walk away. The cost of declining is smaller than a deleted page and an account block attached to your company's name.
Frequently asked questions
Check that it shows live pages it has published, names its editors, discloses paid editing in writing, publishes or itemizes prices and states a concrete refund trigger. Verify each claim on Wikipedia itself rather than on the agency's site.
No. Independent volunteers review drafts and can decline or delete pages at any time. A guarantee of approval signals either misunderstanding or an intention to bypass the rules.
Not always, but a very low price usually means undisclosed accounts, an inexperienced contractor or a vanishing vendor. Ask what is included: source audit, disclosure, review rounds and monitoring.
The page can be deleted, the editor accounts blocked and the connection made public on Wikipedia. Disclosure is required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use and WP:PAID. See is paying for a Wikipedia page legal.
Request live URLs, open each page's history and Talk page, and confirm the editor's user page declares paid editing. The steps are in how to verify a Wikipedia agency's portfolio.
They are a known pattern in this market: new profiles, template praise and bursts of reviews. Check profile age, review history and repeated phrases before trusting a score.
Collect the contract, payments and messages, check the page's status and the editor's account on Wikipedia, and contact your payment provider. If the page was deleted or flagged, see deleted page recovery.
How WikiBusines helps
If you have a proposal you doubt, or you want an honest starting point, we do three things:
- Notability audit, from €490: a paid source review, credited toward the page if ordered within one month, so you learn whether the case holds before spending more.
- English page creation, from €2,400, 4-5 weeks: disclosed in WikiBusines' name, with 90 days of monitoring after publication and an 80% refund if a published page cannot be defended after three attempts. We never guarantee approval.
- Annual Support, from €720/year: up to four updates, 12-month guarantee. Recovery is quoted per case.
You can check our claims against these criteria. To begin, contact us.
Authors and editorial policy
Bohdan DubylovskyiCo-founder and CBO, WikiBusines→
Roman MelnykCo-founder & Chief Editor, WikiBusines→The article was prepared by the WikiBusines co-founders. We sell paid Wikipedia services, so we disclose this interest: paid editing is always declared on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name, and claims about the rules are backed by links to primary sources.
Editorial policy: payment disclosure, conflicts of interest, sources