Wikipedia Notability Assessment and Disclosed Editing

Most organisations that want a Wikipedia article do not qualify for one. We tell about two in three enquiries exactly that, usually inside the first two weeks, and the assessment is all they pay for. WP:NCORP asks for sources independent twice over: written by somebody unconnected to you, and containing analysis that did not originate with you. Funding announcements, founder interviews, awards you entered, rewritten press releases and ranked listicles fail the second test regardless of the masthead above them. The assessment, and the sentence that ends engagements: We build a source table before writing anything. Each candidate source gets four columns: independence of the author, independence of the content, depth of coverage of the organisation itself rather than its market, and whether the publication is treated as reliable in current practice at the reliable sources noticeboard. Three sources clearing all four columns is the working threshold. Below that we write you a document explaining which sources fail and why, recommend what kind of coverage would change the answer, and stop. We do not proceed on a thin table in the hope that a reviewer is distracted. Where our hands go, and where they never go: Every account we operate declares paid status on its user page under the Terms of Use, naming the client. Drafts go through Articles for Creation in draft space, where an uninvolved reviewer decides. On an existing article we never edit the article namespace. Changes are proposed on the talk page with the connected-contributor template and the sources attached, and an unconnected editor accepts, alters or declines them. This is slower and it is the only version that survives. Articles written directly by paid hands get found, tagged, and the tag is the first thing anyone reads for the next three years. Spanish Wikipedia is a separate jurisdiction: es.wikipedia runs its own relevance standard and its own deletion consultations, with a smaller and more sceptical editor base. A machine translation of an accepted English article is a reliable way to collect a relevance tag within days. We assess Spanish-language sources separately, write in Spanish, and treat the two projects as unrelated outcomes, because they are. Wikidata and the knowledge panel: These are a different job with a lower bar, and we are explicit that they are not a Wikipedia article. A referenced Wikidata item with correct instance-of, industry and identifier statements feeds the structures that assemble knowledge panels, and can be created where an article cannot. Where that is the honest recommendation, it is what we propose, at a fraction of the article scope. What we refuse: Removing sourced criticism. Editing an article while a dispute or deletion discussion is live, which reads as exactly what it is. Placing sponsored coverage in outlets and then citing it as independent, which is the most common thing we are asked for and the one that ends the relationship. Creating an account in your name. Guaranteeing an article, a timeline, or survival at deletion, none of which are in anyone's gift. What to expect on timing: The Articles for Creation queue commonly runs eight to sixteen weeks and is not accelerable by anything legitimate. A deletion discussion runs seven days and is decided by argument about sources, which is why the source table is the whole engagement. Talk page edit requests on an existing article are typically actioned within two to four weeks when they arrive with citations attached, and are ignored indefinitely when they do not. Not included: PR placement, journalist outreach, or the creation of the coverage the assessment says is missing. We can tell you what kind of coverage would qualify. Producing it is not this engagement and we will not cite our own arrangements as independent sources.