Why Most Wikipedia Articles Get Deleted And How to Avoid It
Imagine you’re a talented local musician—let’s call her Maya Rivers—whose life changes overnight when one of her self-produced songs is picked up and goes viral on TikTok. What began as a simple bedroom recording suddenly racks up millions of views, inspiring remixes and dance challenges. Overnight, Maya’s inbox fills with messages: fans asking for more music, small venues offering gigs, and even established bloggers wondering who she is. For years, Maya had quietly dreamed of seeing her name in lights but never believed she’d truly “make it.”
But deep down, Maya has always known her story is more than a single catchy chorus. Behind that viral moment lies years of piano lessons, voice competitions won in regional music festivals, and a degree in music theory she earned with honors.
In her heart, she knew that one viral clip, however exciting, was only a snapshot. She wanted the world—and especially future producers and record labels—to see the breadth of her dedication: the classical recitals, the songwriting workshops, the local contests where she took home first prizes. That realization settled in just days after her TikTok success: if a moment on social media could launch her into the spotlight, then a Wikipedia article could solidify her place in music history.
Spurred by this determination—and a touch of impostor syndrome—Maya spent a weekend drafting her own page. She wrote about her early piano lessons, the awards she’d won in high school, and the moment she decided to pursue a music degree. She recounted the story behind her viral song: how it started as a late-night experiment blending electronic beats with folk melodies, recorded on a borrowed laptop. Then she tied it all together with her vision for the future: working with seasoned producers, developing a full-length album, and continuing to perform in venues that had once felt out of reach. She compiles every media mention she can find, including a dozen blog posts and a few regional newspaper write-ups. It was honest, heartfelt, and undeniably passionate.
But two days later, she’s stunned to receive a notification from Wikipedia: “This article is proposed for deletion.” All her passion and late-night edits seem wasted. How could an artist who now commands a global audience on social media not qualify for her own entry?
This scenario—creative person builds a Wikipedia article, only to have it swiftly flagged or deleted—is more common than you might think. In fact, a rough estimate suggests that of all newly proposed articles on English Wikipedia, more than half end up being deleted within days. If you’ve ever wondered why this happens, and what you could do differently, here are the main pitfalls that lead to article deletion and advice on how to build a page that stands the test of Wikipedia’s strict guidelines.
Mistake 1. Notability
Most people assume that dozens of local news mentions and a social media following of thousands would be enough to demonstrate their notability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s “notability” policy isn’t a popularity contest—rather, it’s a set of criteria requiring significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.
Wikipedia defines notability as “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” This means at least two or three in-depth articles—preferably from reputable outlets (national newspapers, established music magazines, recognized trade journals) rather than one-off blog posts or press releases.
What to do:
Mistake 2. Reliance on Press Releases and self-published materials
It may seem logical to pay for a few PR media publications that will nicely and thoroughly tell your story, and assume they’ll count as reliable sources. A press release announcing an EP launch might seem like a solid reference. But no—Wikipedia reviewers point out: “Press releases are primary sources controlled by the subject, and thus not independent. They cannot be used to establish notability.”
The same goes for your personal website, by the way. It’s great if you have one, but any information from it doesn’t count as a reliable source.
How to avoid it:
Mistake 3. Tone and promotional language
Any claims of “revolutionizing” or being a “visionary” came off as subjective, marketing language, not neutral encyclopedic writing.
Wikipedia’s core content policy is neutrality. If a statement can’t be backed by a citation that directly states, “Maya Rivers is known for revolutionizing indie folk,” it’s considered opinion or marketing speak. Phrases like “leading,” “game-changer,” or “exceptional” and hundreds of others fall into this category.
How to avoid It:
Mistake 4. Failure to demonstrate verifiability and inline citations
In the eyes of Wikipedia, a citation that isn’t directly tied to a specific sentence is almost as good as no citation. Editors must be able to verify each claim immediately.
Verifiability requires that every fact—especially potentially controversial or promotional ones—be supported by an inline citation. This means that every sentence describing an achievement, award, or review must end with a footnote linking to a reliable source.
How to avoid it:
Mistake 5. Overlooked Conflict of Interest (COI)
Even if you write the article yourself, make it perfectly neutral, carefully choose references, and follow the style guidelines—there’s still no guarantee it will last more than a day on Wikipedia. In Wikipedia’s eyes, that is a conflict of interest: when someone associated with a subject writes or heavily edits its page, there’s a risk of promotional bias—no matter how neutral you try to be.
Wikipedia discourages people with a close relationship to the subject (e.g., the subject themself, a PR agent, or a close family member) from directly writing or editing the article. They suggest that COI editors propose changes on the “Talk” page and let an uninvolved editor make the edits.
How to avoid it:
Mistake 6. Ignoring structure and style guidelines
The Tale of Maya Rivers (Part 6)
Wikipedia has hundreds of pages of detailed guidelines on article formatting, covering everything from the types of dashes and quotation marks to the approved names of sections. For example, Wikipedia’s style guide recommends prose over lists (unless it’s a discography or filmography).
Wikipedia articles follow a fairly standardized structure. Deviating too much—using subjective section titles or excessive bullet points—signals inexperience and can prompt reviewers to delete or heavily edit the page.
How to avoid it:
Mistake 7. Using a new or unregistered account
One final—and often overlooked—reason articles are quickly deleted has to do with who is posting them. You might have drafted a well-written, well-sourced article that meets every guideline, but if you publish it from an IP address or a freshly created account with no edit history, Wikipedia reviewers are more likely to be skeptical.
Wikipedia relies heavily on reputation and transparency. When a new account suddenly appears and publishes a full article—especially about a living person or company—it can raise flags. Reviewers may wonder whether the editor has a conflict of interest, is promoting themselves, or is even using Wikipedia to boost SEO. This doesn’t mean new contributors can’t succeed, but the barriers are higher.
How to avoid it:
When in doubt, let an expert step in
Creating a Wikipedia article might seem straightforward—just write what you know, cite some sources, and hit publish. But as Maya’s story shows, even the most heartfelt and well-intentioned pages can be deleted within days if they don’t meet Wikipedia’s stringent expectations. Wikipedia isn’t just another platform for self-promotion—it’s a deeply collaborative encyclopedia governed by strict policies, community norms, and detailed formatting rules that can trip up even the most diligent first-time contributors. And when you’re also navigating questions of notability, sourcing, and tone, it can quickly feel overwhelming.
That’s why many individuals, artists, and organizations choose to hand the process over to people who live and breathe Wikipedia. Professionals who understand not just the written guidelines, but the unwritten ones too—what the community expects, how editorial consensus is built, and where the pitfalls lie.
If you're unsure whether your article will stand the test of time—or simply want to make sure it starts off on the right foot—consider letting an experienced editor help shape your story. Wikipedia is a powerful tool for visibility and credibility, but it works best when handled with care.
Imagine you’re a talented local musician—let’s call her Maya Rivers—whose life changes overnight when one of her self-produced songs is picked up and goes viral on TikTok. What began as a simple bedroom recording suddenly racks up millions of views, inspiring remixes and dance challenges. Overnight, Maya’s inbox fills with messages: fans asking for more music, small venues offering gigs, and even established bloggers wondering who she is. For years, Maya had quietly dreamed of seeing her name in lights but never believed she’d truly “make it.”
But deep down, Maya has always known her story is more than a single catchy chorus. Behind that viral moment lies years of piano lessons, voice competitions won in regional music festivals, and a degree in music theory she earned with honors.
In her heart, she knew that one viral clip, however exciting, was only a snapshot. She wanted the world—and especially future producers and record labels—to see the breadth of her dedication: the classical recitals, the songwriting workshops, the local contests where she took home first prizes. That realization settled in just days after her TikTok success: if a moment on social media could launch her into the spotlight, then a Wikipedia article could solidify her place in music history.
Spurred by this determination—and a touch of impostor syndrome—Maya spent a weekend drafting her own page. She wrote about her early piano lessons, the awards she’d won in high school, and the moment she decided to pursue a music degree. She recounted the story behind her viral song: how it started as a late-night experiment blending electronic beats with folk melodies, recorded on a borrowed laptop. Then she tied it all together with her vision for the future: working with seasoned producers, developing a full-length album, and continuing to perform in venues that had once felt out of reach. She compiles every media mention she can find, including a dozen blog posts and a few regional newspaper write-ups. It was honest, heartfelt, and undeniably passionate.
But two days later, she’s stunned to receive a notification from Wikipedia: “This article is proposed for deletion.” All her passion and late-night edits seem wasted. How could an artist who now commands a global audience on social media not qualify for her own entry?
This scenario—creative person builds a Wikipedia article, only to have it swiftly flagged or deleted—is more common than you might think. In fact, a rough estimate suggests that of all newly proposed articles on English Wikipedia, more than half end up being deleted within days. If you’ve ever wondered why this happens, and what you could do differently, here are the main pitfalls that lead to article deletion and advice on how to build a page that stands the test of Wikipedia’s strict guidelines.
Mistake 1. Notability
Most people assume that dozens of local news mentions and a social media following of thousands would be enough to demonstrate their notability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s “notability” policy isn’t a popularity contest—rather, it’s a set of criteria requiring significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.
Wikipedia defines notability as “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” This means at least two or three in-depth articles—preferably from reputable outlets (national newspapers, established music magazines, recognized trade journals) rather than one-off blog posts or press releases.
What to do:
- Gather independent coverage beforehand: Before drafting your page, compile a list of published, third-party articles that discuss you in some depth. If you find only brief mentions (e.g., “Maya Rivers will play at the local fair”), you’re at risk.
- Check existing articles of similar subjects: Look at pages for artists similar to you in profile or career stage. Analyze the sources they cite: if they have five citations from major outlets, but you have only one local blog post, you’ll likely be judged differently.
- Aim for a mix of sources: Newspapers, public radio, reputable magazines, scholarly journals all carry weight. Even a well-researched article in a respected online magazine can help.
- Not enough coverage? Reach out to online magazines or newspapers on your own. Offer to share your story. But be prepared that most of them will decline. Still, if your story is truly interesting, some may take an interest and agree, which will give you +1 invaluable reference.
Mistake 2. Reliance on Press Releases and self-published materials
It may seem logical to pay for a few PR media publications that will nicely and thoroughly tell your story, and assume they’ll count as reliable sources. A press release announcing an EP launch might seem like a solid reference. But no—Wikipedia reviewers point out: “Press releases are primary sources controlled by the subject, and thus not independent. They cannot be used to establish notability.”
The same goes for your personal website, by the way. It’s great if you have one, but any information from it doesn’t count as a reliable source.
How to avoid it:
- Use secondary, independent sources: An in-depth newspaper review of your EP or a magazine interview is far more valuable than any press release.
- Cite only when necessary: If you must use a primary source (e.g., for background details like exact release dates or discography), clearly mark it as such and back it up with independent coverage elsewhere.
- Avoid copying tone or language: Copying phrases from your website or press kit makes your article read like an advertisement, and that’s a surefire way to trigger a deletion discussion.
Mistake 3. Tone and promotional language
Any claims of “revolutionizing” or being a “visionary” came off as subjective, marketing language, not neutral encyclopedic writing.
Wikipedia’s core content policy is neutrality. If a statement can’t be backed by a citation that directly states, “Maya Rivers is known for revolutionizing indie folk,” it’s considered opinion or marketing speak. Phrases like “leading,” “game-changer,” or “exceptional” and hundreds of others fall into this category.
How to avoid It:
- Stick to verifiable facts: Instead of saying “Maya’s innovative sound revolutionized the indie folk scene,” you could write, “In 2022, Maya Rivers released her debut EP, which received positive reviews from The Music Monthly and Folk Weekly for its blend of acoustic and electronic elements.” Notice there’s no opinion—just “positive reviews” supported by sources.
- Quote critics directly: If a music critic really did call her “visionary,” quote that critic and cite it: “Reviewer Jane Doe of Music Insight described Rivers’s sound as ‘a fresh take on traditional folk’ (Jane Doe, Music Insight, June 15, 2022).”
- Use neutral language: Describe milestones (e.g., “performed at [Festival Name]”), list awards or nominations, and reference chart positions. These concrete details speak for themselves without praising.
Mistake 4. Failure to demonstrate verifiability and inline citations
In the eyes of Wikipedia, a citation that isn’t directly tied to a specific sentence is almost as good as no citation. Editors must be able to verify each claim immediately.
Verifiability requires that every fact—especially potentially controversial or promotional ones—be supported by an inline citation. This means that every sentence describing an achievement, award, or review must end with a footnote linking to a reliable source.
How to avoid it:
- Use inline footnotes liberally: After every sentence that states a fact (e.g., “Rivers’s EP peaked at number 10 on the Independent Charts”), add <ref>tags pointing to the exact source (e.g., a charting website or music magazine).
- Organize your sources as you write: It can be tempting to write a full draft and then find sources afterward. Instead, whenever you make a claim, add a footnote in real time. This helps ensure no statement goes uncited.
- Keep the citation format consistent: Wikipedia has specific citation templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}). Learn which template fits each source and use it consistently. Well-formatted citations not only improve readability but also signal to reviewers that you’ve paid attention to detail.
Mistake 5. Overlooked Conflict of Interest (COI)
Even if you write the article yourself, make it perfectly neutral, carefully choose references, and follow the style guidelines—there’s still no guarantee it will last more than a day on Wikipedia. In Wikipedia’s eyes, that is a conflict of interest: when someone associated with a subject writes or heavily edits its page, there’s a risk of promotional bias—no matter how neutral you try to be.
Wikipedia discourages people with a close relationship to the subject (e.g., the subject themself, a PR agent, or a close family member) from directly writing or editing the article. They suggest that COI editors propose changes on the “Talk” page and let an uninvolved editor make the edits.
How to avoid it:
- Be transparent about your role: If you’re the subject or a representative, add a note on the article’s Talk page explaining that you’re affiliated and would welcome a neutral volunteer editor to handle the text.
- Seek an independent reviewer: Once your draft is in your personal sandbox (Wikipedia offers “Draft” spaces for this very reason), ask a third-party Wikipedia editor to review and copy your draft into the mainspace—this reduces COI concerns.
- Stick to facts—avoid opinion: Even with the best intentions, your personal connection can seep into wording. By focusing strictly on verifiable achievements and avoiding any promotional spin, you reduce the appearance of bias.
Mistake 6. Ignoring structure and style guidelines
The Tale of Maya Rivers (Part 6)
Wikipedia has hundreds of pages of detailed guidelines on article formatting, covering everything from the types of dashes and quotation marks to the approved names of sections. For example, Wikipedia’s style guide recommends prose over lists (unless it’s a discography or filmography).
Wikipedia articles follow a fairly standardized structure. Deviating too much—using subjective section titles or excessive bullet points—signals inexperience and can prompt reviewers to delete or heavily edit the page.
How to avoid it:
- Follow a familiar outline: For artists, a typical structure might be: Lead (who the person is, what they’re known for, concise summary), Early life (if verifiable), Career (chronological, focusing on major milestones), Discography (in a table or list), Awards, References.
- Use neutral section titles: Instead of “Why Her Sound is Unique,” use “Musical style” or other titles that you’d find on other artist pages.
- Minimize bullet lists: If you need to list major albums, use a discography table (with columns like “Year,” “Title,” “Label”), but write paragraphs when describing critical reception, tours, or background.
Mistake 7. Using a new or unregistered account
One final—and often overlooked—reason articles are quickly deleted has to do with who is posting them. You might have drafted a well-written, well-sourced article that meets every guideline, but if you publish it from an IP address or a freshly created account with no edit history, Wikipedia reviewers are more likely to be skeptical.
Wikipedia relies heavily on reputation and transparency. When a new account suddenly appears and publishes a full article—especially about a living person or company—it can raise flags. Reviewers may wonder whether the editor has a conflict of interest, is promoting themselves, or is even using Wikipedia to boost SEO. This doesn’t mean new contributors can’t succeed, but the barriers are higher.
How to avoid it:
- Build a history first: Before posting an article, consider spending some time making constructive edits on other articles, fixing typos, adding references, or updating facts. Even 100 good-faith edits to unrelated topics can help establish your account as trustworthy.
- Avoid using an IP address: If you’re not logged in, any edits you make are tied to your IP address, which makes it harder for the community to assess your intent. Creating a free Wikipedia account adds credibility and demonstrates your willingness to be part of the community.
When in doubt, let an expert step in
Creating a Wikipedia article might seem straightforward—just write what you know, cite some sources, and hit publish. But as Maya’s story shows, even the most heartfelt and well-intentioned pages can be deleted within days if they don’t meet Wikipedia’s stringent expectations. Wikipedia isn’t just another platform for self-promotion—it’s a deeply collaborative encyclopedia governed by strict policies, community norms, and detailed formatting rules that can trip up even the most diligent first-time contributors. And when you’re also navigating questions of notability, sourcing, and tone, it can quickly feel overwhelming.
That’s why many individuals, artists, and organizations choose to hand the process over to people who live and breathe Wikipedia. Professionals who understand not just the written guidelines, but the unwritten ones too—what the community expects, how editorial consensus is built, and where the pitfalls lie.
If you're unsure whether your article will stand the test of time—or simply want to make sure it starts off on the right foot—consider letting an experienced editor help shape your story. Wikipedia is a powerful tool for visibility and credibility, but it works best when handled with care.