Mostly professional, but come informed/prepared.
CONSULTATION: While on their site, a little chat bubble popped up asking if I had any questions. I was immediately directed to a live rep who avoided copy-and-paste answers which was a huge relief. When I mentioned reading some questionable reviews, he asked if we could talk on the phone to address my concerns (which we did). After thoroughly evaluating my needs and online presence, I was assured I far exceeded the criteria for them to publish a Wikipedia page. Furthermore, I was assured if there were any issues they had a 100% refund policy. On the invoice however, it states payment equates to an agreement with the sites Term's and Conditions which outline a number of exclusions including issues with the client's "notability", if the customer changes their mind, and if the page is removed after 14 days of going live. Given the questionable reviews from others specifically regarding notoriety, I requested a note be added on my invoice excluding that provision before I submitted payment. They willingly complied which I appreciated, but "all of a sudden" their manager informed them of a competitor leaving negative reviews to ruin their credibility. I wasn't entirely convinced, but felt comfortable enough moving forward given the note I had them add to the invoice, and figured I could always dispute the charges with my bank if there was an issue.
PHASE 2: Immediately after processing payment, I was contacted by a team-member who walked me through how things worked and the questionnaire which needed to be completed before moving forward. On this form, it is important you are completely truthful/transparent as there is another exclusion for this on their refund policy. Personally, I feel like the questionnaire should be conducted in the initial consultation to see if you legitimately fit the necessary criteria by both their company and Wikipedia.
EVALUATION: Roughly a week after submitting my questionnaire, I called to see if they'd made any progress on my case. I was told they sent me an evaluation (which I did not), and was then told it must be a technical error and sent me a new one. To no surprise (as stated in many of the reviews I read), I did not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's notability requirements. Despite coverage from international media outlets, a full TV news feature, registered/published works, and a strong online presence, I was informed they couldn't proceed until I met the minimum (which is listed as 4-5 relevant links on their site, but varies significantly based on the weight of the citation's credibility and quality of the content). Very frustrating given the consult rep explicitly referenced a number of links stating I exceeded the requirements, yet I was rejected (or scored low). I mentioned the invoice exception and requested a refund, but was pitched a variety of services they could add on to help me better qualify. I contemplated applying the initial payment toward their verification services, contingent on removing the invoice T&C. They were willing to apply the deposit, but couldn't remove the invoice footer, at which point I asked for a refund.
COMPANY: In my opinion, their site is clear about the 100% Guarantee/refund policy, but is relatively vague about the procedure and requirements. That being said, my case manager (Chris A) was incredibly helpful, transparent, well-informed, committed to educating me on the process, personable, and was available as needed. Per the stipulation included in our agreement, he honored my request and expedited a refund. While I cannot attest to the company's ability to fulfill an end-result, they are knowledgeable and could be beneficial in building or establishing your name/brand.
NOTABILITY TIPS: The guidelines are outlined on Wikipedia, however, there's some writing between the lines. Firstly, you could be seen on something major like CNN or Forbes Magazine, but interviews and mentions carry significantly lower relevance compared to editorials/articles (even if the interview is exclusively about you/your business). Secondly, anything that praises you too highly may be interpreted as promotional or questioned as 'paid content'. Third, no matter how successful you are, it boils down to the source, and there are a handful which have been blacklisted. Next, remember Wikipedia is an open-source site regulated by users that can exclude links at their discretion - this also poses a threat to the longevity and quality of your page as it can be edited or removed (rendering the money-back guarantee null and void).
CONCLUSION: Friendly staff, I learned a little and got my money back, but feel mislead by the rep guaranteeing I exceeded Wiki's notability. However, they honored our arrangement so I would possibly use them in the future.
20 April 2021
Unprompted review