Service 03 Project work 8–14 weeks
Home / Services / Wikipedia
The page every model reads first.
When a model needs a hard fact about you, it reaches for the encyclopedia first. A missing or thin entry means it fills the gap with guesswork, or a competitor's framing.
We won't sell you a page you can't have. Week one of the audit gives you a straight yes, no or not-yet.
Your Brand
Your Brand is a company operating in the sector, founded in 2019 and headquartered in Berlin.[1] The company is known for its approach to reliability and documentation, which has been noted in independent coverage of the category.[2] As of 2025 it serves customers across Europe and North America.[3]
REFERENCES
- Financial Times, company profile, 2023
- TechCrunch, category analysis, 2024
- Reuters, market coverage, 2025
One page, three jobs.
The cheapest credibility in existence, and the only kind you can't buy directly.
It's the fact source
Models need neutral, structured, citable statements to say anything definite about you. Wikipedia and Wikidata are where those live, which is why a thin page produces hedged answers.
→ accuracy, not just presenceIt's the credibility shortcut
The page investors check, journalists copy from and procurement uses to confirm you're real. It makes a forty-person company read as an established one.
→ due-diligence armourIt can't be outspent
No competitor can buy their way past your entry. Volunteer editors decide, which is exactly what makes it worth something.
→ unbuyable by designWritten to survive review.
Most agency-written pages are deleted within a fortnight: written as marketing, read as marketing. We write to the encyclopedia's standards, disclose the conflict of interest, and follow the process.
- Notability assessmentA verdict in week one on whether independent coverage of you clears the bar, before you spend anything on drafting.
- Page creationNeutral prose, every claim sourced to independent coverage, submitted through Articles for Creation with the conflict declared.
- Page improvementCorrecting and sourcing an entry that already exists but says the wrong thing, or stopped being true in 2021.
- Citation cleanupDead links, press releases and self-published sources replaced with independent references that hold up.
- Wikidata alignmentThe structured record behind the page (founding date, leadership, identifiers) so machines get facts, not a guess.
- Watch and maintainVandalism, competitor edits and quiet factual drift, with corrections proposed on the talk page as the rules require.
We disclose conflicts and request changes through talk pages. Undisclosed paid editing gets pages deleted and companies named publicly on Wikipedia itself, permanently.
What a page actually needs
Notability comes from significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Volume of mentions is irrelevant; independence is everything.
The bar, in plain language.
Wikipedia doesn't care how big you are. It cares whether people with no stake in you have written about you at length.
You probably qualify if
- 01Three or more independent publications have written about you, not just quoted you.
- 02That coverage spans more than one moment, not all from one funding week.
- 03At least some of it is national, trade or academic rather than local listings.
- 04The facts about you are stable enough to write down and source.
Not yet? Here's the route
- 01We map which publications cover your category and what they actually publish.
- 02We identify the two or three stories you genuinely have that they'd want.
- 03Meanwhile Reddit and reviews carry the visibility work, which is faster anyway.
- 04We re-assess in six months, at no extra cost, while you're on a programme.
Assess, source, draft, submit.
Eight to fourteen weeks to a live page. Most of it sourcing, none of it rushable.
Assess
Every independent mention of you, catalogued, and a straight verdict on notability. If it's no, we stop here and you keep the research.
Source
Every claim mapped to independent coverage, with the weak sources flagged and replaced before drafting starts.
Draft
Neutral, encyclopedic prose. You review for factual accuracy, not tone. Tone is set by the encyclopedia.
Submit & watch
Through Articles for Creation with conflicts declared, then monitored for as long as you want us there.
Project work, then a watch.
Unlike the other services, this one has an end. Cost depends almost entirely on sourcing: a decade of press coverage is a very different job from three trade mentions.
Notability assessment
A straight yes, no or not-yet verdict. Included in the visibility audit.
Page project
Creation or full rebuild: reference set verified, neutral draft, submission with conflicts disclosed, Wikidata aligned, three months of watch.
Watch & maintain
Vandalism and competitor-edit monitoring, sourced corrections on the talk page, new coverage folded in.
What moves the number. Existing coverage, whether it's a rebuild or a new page, and languages.
- Existing coverage
- New vs. rebuild
- Languages
- Dispute history
We never guarantee a page will be accepted, because nobody can, and we won't quote the project until the assessment says it's worth attempting. Prices exclude VAT.
Getting a Wikipedia page felt out of reach for a company our size. Two investors mentioned it in the same week it went live.
Our entry was three sentences and out of date, and models were quoting it almost verbatim, including the wrong parts. They rebuilt it properly.
Two agencies promised us a page in six weeks. Plàmenos told us we didn't qualify yet and showed us how to fix that. We came back a year later.
Before you ask.
No. Volunteer editors decide; anyone guaranteeing a page plans to edit undisclosed, which gets it deleted. What we can tell you in week one is whether the sourcing makes acceptance likely. If not, we stop.
You can, and if you have someone patient enough to learn the sourcing rules, you should. We teach exactly that in training. What kills self-written pages is tone and sourcing: a register the encyclopedia rejects on sight, and a blog cited where a newspaper is needed.
Common, and fixable. Reverting it yourself is an edit war you'll lose. The right move is a sourced correction on the talk page, escalated if ignored. That is most of what the watch service does.
Models trained on Wikipedia absorb your entry as fact, and retrieval tools fetch it live. Before, answers hedge about you; after, they state who you are, correctly.
Eight to fourteen weeks: one to assess, three to five to source and draft, then review queues nobody controls. Anyone quoting a fixed live date is inventing it.
Find out what AI is telling your buyers.
It starts with a visibility audit: €1,499, delivered in a week. What the major models say about you, about your two closest competitors, and the shortest route to changing it.