How was your Wikipedia page deleted?
There are four ways a page disappears, and each has a different fix, so classify the deletion before doing anything else.
Speedy deletion (CSD).
One administrator deletes a page at once, without discussion, under a criterion for speedy deletion. For companies the usual ones are G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion), A7 (the article does not credibly indicate why the subject is significant) and G12 (copyright violation, often pasted "About us" text). Speedy deletion judges the article as written, not the subject, so it is often the easiest to recover from.
Proposed deletion (PROD).
Any editor can tag an article for uncontroversial deletion. If nobody objects within seven days, an administrator deletes it. Because PROD is only for uncontested cases, a PROD deletion can normally be undone on request.
Articles for Deletion (AfD).
An editor opens a community discussion, usually for seven days, on whether the subject meets notability. Notability means that independent, reliable sources have given the subject significant coverage; for companies the test is WP:NCORP. An administrator closes it as keep, delete, redirect, merge or no consensus. A "delete" here is a community ruling, so you cannot simply ask for it back.
Office action.
Deletions imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, usually for legal reasons such as a court order or child safety. These cannot be appealed through community channels. If this is your case, you need a lawyer, not an editor. It is rare, but rule it out first so you do not spend weeks preparing an appeal that cannot work.
How do you read the deletion log?
The log is public and permanent, and it turns a guess into a diagnosis.
Open the old URL: Wikipedia usually shows who deleted the page, when, and a short reason that often cites the exact code. "G11" or "A7" means speedy deletion. "PROD" or "Expired PROD" means proposed deletion. "Per AfD" with a discussion link means Articles for Deletion.
Then go one level deeper:
- The page's deletion log lists every deletion, restoration and protection event with timestamps and administrator names. A long history is a warning that the title may be protected.
- The AfD discussion, if there was one, is archived permanently. Read it for the reasoning, not the verdict. Which sources were dismissed? Were reprints collapsed into one source? Was coverage called routine under WP:ORGIND? Did the discussion say the subject fails NCORP, or only that the text was promotional?
The key question is whether the subject failed or the article failed. A page deleted for tone or weak sourcing, when the subject qualifies, is very recoverable: you fix the writing. A page deleted because editors reviewed the sources and found the subject not yet notable cannot be fixed by rewriting. Only new independent coverage helps. Confusing the two is the costliest mistake in recovery.
What are the options for getting a page back?
Escalate from the lightest option. Each rung is faster and less adversarial than the next, and jumping to the top annoys the people whose goodwill you need.
- Ask the deleting administrator. The most underused move. A calm, specific message on their talk page ("this was deleted under G11; what would make a neutral version acceptable, and could you move it to draft so I can work on it?") often gets a straight answer, sometimes a copy of the text, occasionally a reversal when the deletion was borderline. Ask a question; do not make an accusation.
- Request undeletion at REFUND. Requests for Undeletion (WP:REFUND) handles uncontroversial restorations. It fits two cases: PROD deletions, which are normally restored on request (anyone who still wants the page gone must then open a full AfD), and getting a copy of deleted content into your draft space (userfication) so you can rebuild it. REFUND will not overturn an AfD outcome; if the community deleted the page, the request is declined and you are pointed upward.
- Appeal at Deletion Review (DRV). Deletion review exists to check whether the deletion process was followed or whether significant new information has appeared. It is not a rerun of the AfD, and re-arguing notability is closed as "endorse" quickly. Arguments that work are specific: the closer misread consensus, a speedy criterion was applied where it did not fit, the discussion ignored sources that exist, or substantial new independent coverage has been published since. Be concise and bring evidence.
- Redraft through Articles for Creation (AfC). Articles for Creation is the review queue where an experienced reviewer checks a draft against notability and sourcing before it goes live. Instead of fighting for the old page, you submit a new, clean draft. Reviewers accept drafts they judge likely to survive a deletion discussion, which makes an accepted page more resilient. For pages deleted on tone or sourcing, this is usually faster and more durable than DRV. If a draft is declined, see why Wikipedia drafts get rejected.
The rungs are not rigid. You can write to the administrator and prepare an AfC draft at the same time. The principle is to exhaust light, collaborative options before heavy, adversarial ones. None of these routes carries a promise of success; the outcome depends on the sources.
Can you recreate the page, and what is a salted title?
You can recreate a deleted page only if the new version is substantially different and fixes the reason for deletion; copying the old text back gets it deleted again, often within the hour.
When a page was removed for promotion or weak sourcing and the subject qualifies, a materially better, properly sourced article under the same title is allowed. Speedy criterion G4 applies only to recreations that are substantially identical to the deleted version.
The obstacle to check first is salting, formally create-protection. When a title is recreated again and again, for example by undisclosed paid editors posting version after version, an administrator can protect it so that new pages cannot be created there by ordinary accounts. Only Wikipedia administrators set protection; no vendor can do it or lift it for you. You will see it as a "protected" entry in the deletion log, or the create page will say creation is restricted.
A salted title is not closed forever, but you cannot publish directly. You go through AfC or DRV, show that a qualifying article now exists, and ask an administrator to lift the protection or move the approved draft into place. This is why "just create another one" is so damaging: every careless recreation brings the title closer to salting.
How do you fix the reason the page was deleted?
Fix the actual cause before you resubmit. The closing rationale you read earlier is your repair brief, and it almost always points to one of three causes.
| Cause | What it means | Real fix | Typical effort |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promotional tone | Marketing language, mission paragraphs, the company's own framing | Neutral encyclopedic rewrite, claims attributed to independent sources | Days |
| Source quality | Press releases, interviews, contributor columns, directory listings, reprints of one story | Keep the few sources that are significant, independent, reliable and secondary; drop the rest | Weeks |
| Notability | The subject lacks qualifying coverage | New independent coverage that did not exist at the time of deletion | Months, or not yet possible |
Tone is the most fixable and the most common. A subject that qualifies but was written like a brochure is deleted for tone and recovered by rewriting. Sourcing comes next: a page built on three solid independent features survives where a page built on thirty announcements does not. Notability is a coverage-building project, not an editing one. If your source list at the AfD was thin and nothing has changed, the page is not coming back yet, and pretending otherwise burns money and credibility with the editors you will need later. To estimate where you stand, the Notability Index and the Wikipedia media list are self-serve tools.
Can AI assistants still cite the deleted version?
Yes. Deleting a page does not delete its influence, because language models learn from web snapshots and Wikipedia is one of the most heavily weighted sources in them.
An assistant can keep describing your company with facts from the deleted article, including the promotional claims or errors that got it deleted, or cite an outdated version. Mirror and scraper sites copy deleted text and keep feeding crawlers. We cannot promise what any AI will say; the aim is that the current, accurate page becomes the source both people and AI systems converge on, which improves slowly as models retrain and the live page accumulates references. This is also why a restored page is worth keeping accurate through ongoing support, and why you can check how AI describes you with an AI visibility audit.
What should you not do after a deletion?
Avoid three moves that feel natural and make recovery harder.
- Sockpuppets. Using extra accounts to recreate the page or fake community support is sockpuppetry. Investigators link accounts by technical evidence, and the result is blocked accounts, a protected title and a damaged reputation.
- Edit wars. Re-adding the page or reverting an administrator turns a content question into a conduct problem, and administrators have more tools than you.
- Undisclosed paid editing. Paid editing without disclosure breaks the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use and the paid-contribution disclosure policy. It is routinely discovered, public, and often triggers the scrutiny that makes a page unrecoverable. Compliant work is openly disclosed on the page and talk page.
Is it sometimes better not to fight for the page?
Yes. If the deletion was correct, money spent on REFUND, DRV and repeated drafts only delays the outcome. Weigh these alternatives:
- Wikidata. Its inclusion bar is lower: an entity needs to be identifiable and referenced. A well-built item does not give you a prose article, but it feeds knowledge graphs and is increasingly read by AI systems. See Wikidata and the knowledge graph.
- Build coverage first. When the rationale was "no sources", the only durable fix is independent, secondary coverage earned over time. It is a PR and media project, not a Wikipedia one, and it is the step companies most want to skip.
- A new page later. Once that coverage exists, a clean new Wikipedia page built on it survives where a forced recreation of the old one would not.
How WikiBusines helps
We run this ladder for companies whose page was deleted, with paid editing always disclosed on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name. We start with the deletion log and the closing rationale and tell you which cause you face, including when the honest answer is "not yet".
- Deleted page recovery: quoted per case, usually 2 to 6 weeks, depending on the deletion route and the sources. Details.
- Notability audit: from €490, credited toward a page if you proceed within one month. It tells you whether the sources would carry a new page. Details.
- New page creation: from €2,400 for English, 4 to 5 weeks, with 90 days of monitoring and a guarantee after publication. We do not guarantee that a page will be published; if a published page cannot be defended after three attempts within the 90-day window, 80% is refunded. Details.
To see what a recovery engagement involves, read what a recovery service does, with honest odds and pricing. To start, send the page title and the deletion log through the contact page for the free 10-minute assessment; if the case is unclear, we offer the paid notability audit.
Frequently asked questions
Often, yes, but it depends on how it was deleted. Pages removed by speedy deletion or PROD are the most recoverable, since the underlying subject was not judged by the community. A page deleted at AfD needs new evidence or a process argument, and an office action cannot be appealed through community channels.
Open the old page URL and read the deletion notice, then check the page's deletion log. The reason usually names a code such as G11, A7 or PROD, or links to an AfD discussion. The discussion's closing summary shows which arguments decided it.
REFUND is for uncontroversial restorations, mainly PROD deletions and requests for a copy of the deleted text. Deletion Review is a formal appeal that checks whether process was followed or whether significant new information exists. Neither is a second vote on notability.
A reply at REFUND can take days, and a DRV discussion typically runs about a week. A rewrite and AfC review usually take weeks, and building new coverage for a notability failure takes months. Timelines depend on the sources, not on how much effort is applied.
Only if the new version is substantially different and fixes the reason for deletion. A near-copy of the old text is a candidate for speedy deletion (G4), and repeated recreation can lead an administrator to protect the title against creation.
It is a title protected against creation after repeated recreations. Ordinary accounts cannot create a page there. You must go through Articles for Creation or Deletion Review and ask an administrator to lift the protection or move your approved draft.
You can propose changes, but you have a conflict of interest, and paid editing must be disclosed under the Wikimedia terms of use. Undisclosed editing is a common reason for protection and blocks, so route the work through a draft and open disclosure.
It can. Models learn from snapshots and mirror sites, so facts from a deleted article may persist for a while. No one can control what an AI says, but a current, accurate, well-sourced page and a Wikidata entry improve the sources models draw on over time.
Authors and editorial policy
Bohdan DubylovskyiCo-founder and CBO, WikiBusines→
Roman MelnykCo-founder & Chief Editor, WikiBusines→The article was prepared by the WikiBusines co-founders. We sell paid Wikipedia services, so we disclose this interest: paid editing is always declared on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name, and claims about the rules are backed by links to primary sources.
Editorial policy: payment disclosure, conflicts of interest, sources