Why Your Wikipedia Draft Was Rejected (and What to Do Next)

It’s a story we hear more often than you might think — a kind of modern digital fable.

An artist begins gaining momentum. A startup goes viral. A nonprofit lands a big media feature. Suddenly, there’s buzz. Recognition. Followers. Coverage. And someone on the team, somewhere, says the inevitable:

“We should be on Wikipedia.”

It makes sense. A Wikipedia article isn’t just another online listing — it’s validation. It’s where journalists check facts. Where potential investors get a first impression. Where fans, clients, or even future employers go to learn more. It feels like the ultimate stamp of public relevance.

So, someone rolls up their sleeves. They write a draft. Maybe it’s you. Maybe it’s someone on your team. You add in every accolade, each press mention, glowing testimonials. You pour in effort. You hit “Publish.”

And then it happens.

“This article has been proposed for deletion.”

Or worse:

“This page has been deleted.”

Confused? Frustrated? You’re not alone. It’s a common experience — and for many, an infuriating one.

All that effort, all that meticulous crafting, seemingly for naught. How could something so clearly important, so widely recognized, not qualify for a Wikipedia entry?

And when you go looking for answers… it gets worse.

You find yourself knee-deep in cryptic comments like: “Fails WP:GNG”, “Too promotional, see WP:NPOV”, or “No SIGCOV, one RS”.

Welcome to the world of Wikipedia, where editors adore their own shorthand—shortcuts like WP:COI, WP:RS, or WP:NOTPROMO—and where few will stop to fully explain something. It’s not meant to be hostile—it’s just that the community assumes you already know the rules.

So let’s break it all down. Why was your article rejected? And how do you turn things around?

Most people assume that if someone or something is widely talked about, they're "notable." Not so for Wikipedia. Notability on Wikipedia is a very specific concept, and it's perhaps the most frequent reason for rejections. It's not about how many followers you have, or how many local accolades you've received. It’s about significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

Imagine this: You've developed an incredibly popular mobile app. It's been downloaded millions of times, and users rave about it online. You might even have been featured in a local tech blog or two. While this indicates success, it likely doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standard on its own. Now, if Wired magazine publishes a feature on your app's impact, or TechCrunch analyzes its innovative technology in detail, or a reputable business book discusses your company as a case study – that's the kind of significant, independent coverage Wikipedia is looking for.

Wikipedia is not a place to "sell" your subject. Even subtle marketing language can trigger a red flag.

Here’s a quick litmus test: Does your draft contain any of these words?

“Leading,” “innovative,” “pioneering,” “best,” “disruptive,” “game-changing.”

If so, pause.

Wikipedia demands neutrality. You can’t say someone is “world-renowned” unless a respected source has called them that — and you cite it. You can’t say a product is “revolutionary” unless it’s been described that way in a reliable publication.

Real-world contrast:

❌ “The company revolutionized the industry with its cutting-edge platform.”

✅ “In 2023, Forbes described the company’s platform as ‘a significant advancement in enterprise solutions.’”

See the difference? Same story — but in the second version, the praise comes from someone else, and that matters.

Every factual statement in your article must be backed up by a citation from a reliable source. Wikipedia doesn’t accept “trust me” — even if you’re the founder, the CEO, or the artist yourself.

Common sourcing issues:

When in doubt, ask: If I weren’t me, could I verify this fact from a respected, independent publication?

This is a subtle yet significant hurdle. Wikipedia takes conflicts of interest (COI) very seriously. If you’re writing about yourself, your company, your client, or anyone you’re closely connected to — that’s a COI.

Even if you do everything “right” — great sources, neutral tone, correct formatting — the very fact that you’re directly involved can hurt your draft.

Wikipedia prefers that COI editors:

Think of it this way: If you’re too close to the subject, let someone else be the voice. Wikipedia runs on the principle of community objectivity — and when in doubt, the community will side with caution.

Wikipedia isn't just about content; it's also about presentation. The platform has extensive Manual of Style (MOS) guidelines that dictate everything from how dates are formatted to the appropriate section headings. Your article could have solid content, great tone, and strong sources — and still get flagged if it doesn’t look like a Wikipedia page.

Common mistakes:

Wikipedia articles follow a specific structure and tone. A seasoned editor can spot an amateur draft instantly — not because of what you say, but how you say it.

(There’s no official shortcut for this, and it’s not explicitly prohibited — but here’s a little secret from us: it plays a very important role.)

Here’s something few people realize:

If you create a new Wikipedia account and immediately try to publish an article — especially about yourself — you’re likely to get flagged.

Why? Because trust on Wikipedia is built over time.

If your account has no edit history, it may be viewed as promotional or self-interested, even if your intentions are good.

One thing many people don’t realize: repeated submissions of a rejected draft often make things worse.

Each resubmission draws more attention from experienced editors. If the same issues keep popping up — or if the subject still isn’t deemed notable — the draft can be locked down or even blacklisted from future creation.

This is where a strategic approach becomes essential. You need to know what to fix, how to fix it, and when to wait. It’s not just about trying harder — it’s about doing it right.

But getting a draft rejected isn’t the end of the story. Here’s your playbook:

Going it alone again may not be the best strategy.

We specialize in Wikipedia articles for individuals, companies, artists, and organizations.

We understand not just the content, but the culture: how to navigate policies, write in Wikipedia’s voice, and build pages that meet community standards. If you want to save time, avoid repeated rejections, and get your article right the first time — let’s talk.

Here’s what some of those common acronyms mean: