Loading…
Deleted Page Recovery
Send us the deletion discussion or the rejected draft. We review what failed, identify the source gaps, and propose a path. Sometimes that's recovery; sometimes it's a different platform; sometimes it's waiting.
What you get
We review the deletion discussion, identify the source gaps, and propose a recovery strategy. When a page is unlikely to be restored, we suggest a route that actually works: Wikidata, Simple English Wikipedia, or another language edition.
Starting price
Quoted per case
Typical timeline
2-6 weeks
Best for
Common deletion reasons
Sources didn't meet the reliable-source bar — press releases, sponsored content, affiliate blogs only.
Edits traced back to corporate accounts, IPs, or undeclared paid editors. Trust gone.
Even with real sources, the prose read as marketing. Reverted, tagged, eventually deleted.
After repeated deletions, the title is locked from recreation. Needs a strategic re-approach.
How it works
Five steps from nomination to closure — and the appeal path if the outcome goes the wrong way. Knowing the timeline is half the battle.
Any registered editor with enough edit history can open an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion, citing a stated policy reason — usually notability, conflict of interest, or promotional tone. A banner is added to the article immediately.
Wikipedia jargon
A 12-term decoder for the abbreviations that show up in every deletion discussion.
AfD
Articles for Deletion
The community discussion forum where editors debate whether an article should be deleted.
CSD
Criteria for Speedy Deletion
Fast-track removal for clear-cut cases such as spam, copyright violation, or attack pages. No discussion window.
PROD
Proposed Deletion
A soft deletion tag. If no editor objects within the window, the page is deleted; any objection moves it to a full AfD.
DRV
Deletion Review
The formal appeal forum for a contested deletion, used when new evidence or a procedural flaw can be shown.
WP:GNG
General Notability Guideline
The baseline rule: a subject needs significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
WP:NCORP
Notability for Companies
A stricter version of GNG applied to companies and organisations, excluding press releases and funding announcements.
WP:CORPDEPTH
Corporate Depth Standard
“Significant” coverage means a comprehensive overview or analysis, not a brief mention in a roundup.
WP:NOTPROMO
Not a Promotional Platform
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, PR, or self-promotion — a common reason articles get tagged or removed.
WP:COI
Conflict of Interest
Anyone with a financial or personal stake in the subject is expected to disclose it before editing the article.
WP:NPOV
Neutral Point of View
Core content policy: articles must present facts without bias, marketing language, or editorial opinion.
WP:RS
Reliable Sources
Sources with editorial oversight and fact-checking. Excludes personal blogs, most contributor platforms, and social media.
G11 / G15
Speedy Promo and AI criteria
G11 removes unambiguous advertising on sight. G15, added in August 2025, targets unreviewed LLM-generated content.
Famous cases
Real, documented cases that changed how Wikipedia handles deletion, paid editing, and notability. Each one carries a practical lesson.
An early Wikipedia biography of the chemist who helped discover element 117 (tennessine) was deleted in 2019 for insufficient sourcing, then restored after new coverage was documented.
Lesson: Notability isn't about achievement — it's about documented coverage. Build the coverage first, then publish.
Read the case on Wikipedia →A detailed article about a fabricated 19th-century war stayed live for over five years before editors discovered every citation pointed to non-existent sources.
Lesson: Polished tone and structure can outlast weak fact-checking. Real sourcing has to hold up on inspection, not just on the page.
Read the case on Wikipedia →A firm running dozens of undisclosed accounts to edit articles for paying clients was investigated and banned, along with every account tied to it.
Lesson: Undisclosed paid editing gets caught. Disclosure on the talk page is the only durable path.
Read the case on Wikipedia →A coordinated sockpuppet ring created fake deletion threats against businesses, then offered to “restore” the pages for a fee. The ring was investigated and mass-banned.
Lesson: A legitimate agency does not need to manufacture deletion risk to sell you a fix. If the pitch depends on fear, that's the tell.
Read the case on Wikipedia →A prominent contributor and administrator claimed academic credentials he did not hold. The scandal pushed Wikipedia toward clearer conflict-of-interest and identity norms.
Lesson: Editor credibility matters as much as source credibility. Track record, not claimed credentials, is what should carry weight.
Read the case on Wikipedia →Alternative routes
We don't sell a draft that we don't believe will survive review. Often a different platform delivers more search and AI visibility, faster, with zero deletion risk.
Sometimes the right answer is to publish nothing and revisit in 12-18 months.
A clean Wikidata entity captures Knowledge Graph and LLM coverage with zero deletion risk.
Lighter editorial standards, full Wikipedia infrastructure, near-identical SEO authority.
Different communities have different notability thresholds. We assess and propose.
Lesser-known options
When an AfD goes the wrong way, deletion is rarely the end. Wikipedia has several formal recovery mechanisms most page creators don't know exist.
Restores pages deleted via PROD, certain speedy-deletion criteria, or a low-participation AfD. The article returns to draft or user space for rework rather than staying gone.
Moves the article to a personal subpage, out of public view but preserved so it can be improved once stronger sourcing exists.
Moves the article to draft space instead of deleting it outright. You can keep improving it there and resubmit through Articles for Creation when it is ready.
After fixing the original deletion grounds, resubmit through AfC. An experienced reviewer checks the article before it goes live again, which is a meaningfully safer path than a direct republish.
Myths vs reality
The most common misconceptions companies bring into an AfD discussion, and the policy reality that actually decides the outcome.
Myth
AfD is a democratic vote — most votes wins.
Reality
AfD is argument-based consensus. An admin weighs each argument against Wikipedia policy and does not simply count votes; a well-sourced Delete argument can outweigh several Keep comments.
Myth
A press release on a big-name outlet counts as a reliable source.
Reality
Press releases and sponsored posts don't establish notability, regardless of which outlet republished them. What counts is independent editorial coverage from staff journalists.
Myth
Wikipedia bans all paid editing.
Reality
Paid editing is allowed with disclosure. Wikipedia's Terms of Use require paid editors to disclose their employer and client on their user page — concealment, not payment, is what triggers bans.
Myth
Once deleted, an article is gone for good.
Reality
Several recovery paths exist — undeletion requests, userfication, draftification, and Articles for Creation resubmission — and most are underused simply because creators assume deletion is final.
Myth
Editing the article during an AfD discussion doesn't change anything.
Reality
The live-discussion window is the highest-leverage moment in the whole process. Adding sources and rewriting tone while the discussion is open is visible to everyone weighing in.
Myth
More citations is always better.
Reality
Source quality beats quantity. A handful of strong, independent, editorially-reviewed sources outweighs a long list of weak ones — and padding a thin article with low-quality citations can read as an attempt to manufacture notability.
Case study
How a source-first defence can move from AfD nomination to a Keep verdict within the discussion window.
An editor tagged the page for weak sourcing — several citations were press releases, one was a company blog. The deletion banner appeared and the page creator was notified.
A full audit of the existing sources identified which could be strengthened and which needed replacing. A conflict-of-interest declaration was drafted for the talk page.
Coverage was placed with independent outlets carrying original reporting and direct quotes — not just a passing mention.
Promotional language was removed, new sources were added, and the conflict of interest was declared openly. The nominating editor acknowledged the improvements in the thread.
The closing admin noted the improved sourcing and neutral tone. The deletion banner was removed and the article stayed up.
Search presence returned to normal within two weeks of the Keep decision, and the brand began reappearing in AI-generated answers shortly after.
Prevention
Seven habits that reduce deletion risk well before the page is even published.
Don't stop at the minimum needed to pass review — extra coverage is a buffer if one source turns out weaker under scrutiny later.
Don't wait for a deletion nomination to force the disclosure. Upfront transparency is what protects against an undisclosed-paid-editing accusation.
Wikipedia can trace editing patterns back to an organisation. Edits from a work IP are a fast way to trigger a conflict-of-interest flag.
The opening paragraph gets the most scrutiny. Language like “industry leader” signals promotional intent and colours how the rest of the article is read.
AfC runs an experienced editor's review before the article goes live, catching source and tone problems before they become a deletion nomination.
Most deletion nominations happen early. A watchlist and a regular check let you respond to a tag before it escalates into a full discussion.
A page with nobody actively watching it is a page nobody will defend when a nomination shows up. Ongoing monitoring is what turns a policy problem into a fixable one.
Frequently asked questions
Where to next
Send it. We'll read it carefully and reply with what's realistic — not what's easy to sell.