Your Wikipedia page has been flagged for removal.
That sinking feeling in your stomach is completely valid. A nomination for deletion feels like a disaster, especially after all the effort put into the article. Should you panic? No. Is this a serious challenge? Absolutely.
First, take a moment to breathe. The most damaging response you can have is an emotional one. A successful defense of your Wikipedia article requires a rational, policy-based approach. The sooner you understand the specific deletion mechanism being used, the faster you can mount an effective, targeted defense.
Okay, let’s analyze the situation.
Why are Wikipedia articles nominated for deletion?
An article is nominated for deletion when a community editor believes it violates one or more of Wikipedia’s core content policies. These are the fundamental rules that define what the encyclopedia is and what it is not.
The single most common reason for a Wikipedia article deletion nomination is the failure to meet the Notability Guideline. This means the article topic has not been covered:
- Significantly: More than passing mentions in source material.
- By Reliable Sources: Credible, published works with editorial oversight (e.g., major news outlets, academic books, university presses).
- From Independent Sources: Not published by or affiliated with the subject itself (no press releases, corporate websites, or internal interviews).
Other high-priority reasons for deletion include:
- Promotional Tone (NPOV violation): The language is boastful, reads like an advertisement, or uses subjective superlatives (e.g., “leading,” “best-in-class,” “innovative”, etc).
- Lack of Verifiability: Claims are made without any citations, or the citations provided are to unreliable sources (social media, blogs, forum posts).
- Vandalism or Hoax: Although less common, articles created purely in bad faith are removed quickly.
My page has a deletion tag. What is the immediate next step?
The appropriate response is entirely dependent on which of the three deletion processes has been invoked. You must identify the tag type to craft your AfD defense strategy.
1. Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD)
This is the most critical threat. CSD is reserved for extreme, uncontestable violations (e.g., patent spam, non-meaningful content, or clear hoaxes). Articles flagged under CSD can be deleted within minutes or hours.
Your Immediate Action:
If the tag is inappropriate, you must contest the speedy deletion immediately. Go to the article’s Talk page and add a new section explaining, using policy, why the CSD criteria do not apply. Do not argue that the subject is “important”—argue that the article does not meet the CSD definition for removal. A thoughtful, policy-compliant contest can lead the administrator to downgrade the tag to a full AfD debate.
2. Proposed Deletion (PROD)
PROD is a non-controversial, low-urgency deletion intended for articles that lack necessary context or sourcing but don’t qualify for CSD. The process lasts seven days.
The Key Rule:
Any good-faith editor can remove a PROD tag. It only takes one objection to halt the process permanently, as the same article cannot be PROD’d twice.
Your Action:
- Remove the tag. This stops the clock immediately.
- Commit to improvement. Crucially, go to the article’s Talk page and leave a note explaining that you removed the tag and are now working to address the exact sourcing or context issues cited by the nominator.
- Execute the improvement. Spend the next few days significantly adding independent, verifiable sources. This ensures the article will not immediately be moved to the more serious AfD process.
3. Articles for Deletion (AfD)
The AfD process is a seven-day community debate intended to establish consensus on whether an article should be kept or deleted, primarily based on the notability standard. This is where most complex deletion discussions take place.
Your Action Plan for AfD Defense:
- Source Research: Your primary goal is to find sources that were missed in the initial article creation. You need to present new, independent, high-quality coverage to demonstrate notability.
- Engage Rationally: Join the discussion on the AfD page. Your comments must be policy-driven, not emotional. Use phrases like, “The article should be kept because the subject meets WP:GNG via coverage in Source A and Source B,” rather than, “I think this topic is important.”
- Improve the Article: While the debate is ongoing, actively edit the live article. Incorporate the powerful new sources you found. This demonstrates to the administrators and editors that the article is fixable and policy-compliant, greatly increasing the chances of a “Keep” consensus.
What if the article is already gone? (Request for Undeletion)
If your Wikipedia article was deleted, all is not lost. You can attempt a post-deletion recovery through the Request for Undeletion (RfU) process.
- Identify the Reason: Check the page’s deletion log to confirm why it was deleted (e.g., lack of consensus, lack of sources).
- Request Access: If the page was deleted through PROD or a poorly attended AfD, you can request an administrator to restore the content to your private Draft space.
- Rewrite and Relaunch: The key to a successful undeletion is promising that the content will be significantly improved. You must use the access granted to completely rework the article to address the original policy violation (usually notability). Do not attempt to submit the old, flawed article again.
What if the article is already gone? (Request for Undeletion)
If your Wikipedia article was deleted, all is not lost, but the path to post-deletion recovery is narrow and governed by strict policy. You can attempt this recovery through the Request for Undeletion (RfU) process.
When Restoration Is Possible
An article can generally only be restored via RfU if it was deleted without a strong, clear community consensus. This includes:
- PROD Deletion: If the page was deleted after the seven-day PROD period expired without any objection (this is the simplest path to restoration).
- CSD Error: If the page was deleted under Speedy Deletion due to a clear administrative error or misapplication of a CSD criterion.
- Uncontroversial AfD Close: If the page was deleted following an AfD discussion that had very little participation, or where the consensus was unclear (a “soft delete”).
Your Action:
- Check the page’s deletion log to confirm why it was deleted.
- If it meets the ‘soft delete’ criteria, you can request an administrator to restore the content to your private Draft space. If the administrator believes that your article is notable or ready for mainspace, then they may choose to move the page directly to mainspace (live Wikipedia page) instead of restoring it to a private draft.
- The key to a successful undeletion is promising significant improvement. You must use the access granted to completely rework the article using new, high-quality sources before attempting to publish it again.
When Restoration Is Impossible (The “Hard Delete” Criteria)
If the page was deleted following a strong Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion where there was a clear, sustained, and policy-backed consensus to delete, restoration is typically impossible. You cannot use the RfU process to challenge a solid community decision.
The Alternative Approach: In this scenario, you must accept the deletion. Your only option is to wait until the subject has accumulated substantially greater notability (e.g., more national media coverage, major awards) and then submit an entirely new draft article from scratch, citing the powerful new sources that address the original AfD concerns. Do not attempt to re-publish the deleted content.
This process seems overwhelming. Where can I find expert help?
The Wikipedia deletion process can become complicated very quickly, especially when several editors begin using technical policy terms that may be unfamiliar. It is understandable to feel uncertain or overwhelmed in such situations.
While you can ask editors for clarification and many of them will be willing to explain specific points, they usually cannot guide you through every step or help you structure a complete response. For that level of support, you need someone who understands Wikipedia policies thoroughly and who can look at the situation from an experienced and neutral perspective.
If you find that the process is taking more time than you can spare or you are unsure how to address the concerns raised, it is entirely reasonable to seek assistance from a professional. A specialist with deep experience in Wikipedia’s guidelines, deletion procedures and editorial expectations can review your case and advise you on the most effective way forward.
If you would like expert guidance, feel free to contact us. We can assess your page, identify the issues and recommend the appropriate next steps. Our goal is to help you navigate the process clearly and confidently, without unnecessary stress.