How to restore a deleted Wikipedia page

What are the ways to get a deleted Wikipedia page back?

There are five, and the deletion reason decides which ones are open. If you have not yet found the reason, our guide to why a Wikipedia page was deleted explains how to read the log.

These are not exclusive. A common sequence is to ask the administrator for the old text in draft space, rewrite it around new sources, and then submit it for review.

Should you ask the deleting administrator first?

Usually, yes. Wikipedia's own advice is to raise a deletion politely with the administrator who carried it out, and the deletion review page suggests discussing the matter with the closer first because it can resolve things more quickly. The administrator's name is in the deletion log, and the place to write is their user talk page.

Administrators can do several things on their own authority. They can undelete a page, restore it to draft or user space so it can be worked on, or explain what would need to change. Some administrators will also send a copy of deleted text on request. None of them is obliged to agree, and none will restore a copyright violation.

A good request is short and specific. It names the page, says how you are connected to the subject, states what has changed since the deletion, and lists the new independent sources. A request that argues the subject deserves an article, without new evidence, rarely gets anywhere.

What can Requests for undeletion restore?

Requests for undeletion handles deletions that Wikipedia treats as reversible on request, without a debate. It covers three kinds:

• Pages deleted through proposed deletion, which the proposed deletion policy says can be undeleted upon request.
• Discussions closed as a soft deletion, usually because nobody took part.
• Speedy deletions under a short list of criteria: A1, A3, A10, F4, F5, G6, G7, G8, G14, U1 and U2.

Abandoned drafts deleted under criterion G13 have their own request page linked from the main one, and are normally restored so work can continue.

What it does not cover is just as important. Deletions after an Articles for Deletion discussion go to deletion review instead. The speedy criteria most often applied to pages about people and companies, including A7 (no indication of importance), G11 (promotion) and G12 (copyright), are not on the list, so those requests go to the deleting administrator.

When a request is granted, the page can be restored where it was, restored as a draft, moved to your user space, or emailed to you privately. A page restored after proposed deletion cannot be proposed for deletion again, so if someone still objects, the next step is a full discussion. Fix whatever the nominator raised before that happens.

When is deletion review the right route?

Deletion review is for cases where the deletion itself went wrong. Its guidance lists the main uses:

• the closer interpreted the consensus of a discussion incorrectly;
• a speedy deletion was carried out when the page did not meet the criterion;
• there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion;
• significant new information has come to light since the deletion;
• a page was deleted with no way to tell what it contained;
• a recreation is blocked by create protection.

It is not to be used for a deletion that Requests for undeletion can reverse, for asking permission to rewrite a deleted page where no restriction applies, for disagreeing with an outcome that did not involve the closer's judgment, or for repeating arguments already made in the discussion. Attacks on editors and accusations of bias are also out of place.

A review normally stays open for at least seven days. Participants comment that the deletion should be endorsed or overturned, that it should be relisted for fresh discussion, or that recreation should be allowed. If the consensus is to undelete, an administrator restores the page; if it is to relist, it goes back to the relevant deletion forum; if the deletion is endorsed, it stands. Administrators often restore a page temporarily so participants can read it, but copyright violations and material that breaches the policy on biographies of living persons are not restored even for that purpose.

Deletion review works when you can show the process failed. It fails when it is used to argue the case again. The preconditions, the filing steps and each possible result are set out in our guide to Wikipedia deletion review.

What are userfication and draftification?

They are ways of bringing deleted or unready text back outside the main article space, so it can be improved without being judged as a finished article. Userfication moves the page to a subpage of an editor's user space. Draftification puts it in the draft space, with "Draft:" in front of the title. Draft space is generally the better choice for an article, because drafts can be submitted for review from there.

An administrator can undelete a page and move it in one step. Requests can go to the deleting administrator, to Requests for undeletion, or come out of a deletion review. Three limits apply:

• Copyright violations are never restored this way, and attack pages, libellous material and spam are deleted outright rather than moved.
• User space and draft space are not long-term homes for text that will never be suitable. User pages can be nominated for deletion, and drafts not edited by a human for six months can be deleted under criterion G13.
• Speedy deletion criterion G4, which removes reposts of pages deleted after discussion, excludes drafts and user pages restored for the explicit purpose of improvement. Moving the text back to the article space without that improvement removes the exclusion.

Draftification is also something that happens to live articles. If an article was moved to draft space rather than deleted, the draft guidance says it should normally be moved only once unilaterally, and that an objection means the question goes to discussion instead. Editors with a conflict of interest are not counted as objectors for that purpose.

Can you rebuild the page through Articles for Creation instead?

Yes, and after a deletion discussion this is often the strongest route. Articles for Creation is the review queue where an experienced volunteer checks a draft before it is published. The conflict of interest guideline asks connected editors to put new articles through it rather than create them directly, and a draft from a connected editor can still be accepted if it meets the standard.

No permission is needed to write a new version of a page deleted after discussion. Deletion review states that it is not for asking permission to rewrite a deleted page unless a restriction such as create protection applies. What matters is the content. The Articles for Creation guidance says the reasons for a deletion after discussion need to be addressed before the article is recreated, and speedy deletion criterion G4 removes recreations that are substantially similar to the deleted version.

In practice, a rebuilt draft should:

1. Answer the closing statement point by point, usually with independent, in-depth coverage that was not available or not used before.
2. Be written fresh, in neutral wording, rather than lightly revised from the deleted text.
3. Carry a disclosure of any paid connection, on the author's user page or the draft's talk page, as the paid-contribution rules require, and a plain statement of any personal connection.
4. Mention the earlier discussion where it helps reviewers see what has changed.

Reviews have no fixed waiting time, and drafts are not necessarily reviewed in the order they were submitted. If a draft is declined, the decline notice explains why; our guide to a declined Wikipedia draft covers what to do next.

What if the title is create-protected?

Then nobody below the protection level can create the page, however good the draft. Create protection, often called salting, is used on titles that have been deleted and repeatedly recreated. It can be set at the autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed or full level, and the protection policy notes that it is usually permanent.

The policy gives three ways to ask for it to be lifted:

1. Contact an administrator, preferably the one who protected the title.
2. File a request for the protection level to be reduced, through Requests for page protection.
3. Use deletion review, which lists recreation blocked by create protection among its proper uses.

The policy adds that showing a draft version of the intended article helps. That is the decisive point. An administrator asked to unprotect a title on promises alone will usually decline. One shown a finished, neutral draft built on new independent sources can judge it directly.

Protection does not change the repost rule. The speedy deletion policy states that a title being create-protected is not a factor in whether G4 applies. An unprotected title is no defence for a substantially identical recreation, and a protected one is no bar to a genuinely new version once an administrator agrees. Our guide to page protection covers the protection levels in full.

Is it worth asking for restoration on your own?

For a proposed deletion or an abandoned draft, generally yes. The request is a few lines at Requests for undeletion, approval is the norm, and the administrator does not need to be persuaded of anything. The work starts after restoration, when the page has to be brought up to the standard that would survive a discussion.

The routes that involve judgment are different. An approach to the deleting administrator, a deletion review or a request to lift create protection is read alongside everything the earlier attempt left behind: the discussion, the decline notices, the accounts involved. Each of these routes works best once, with the evidence in order. A deletion review that re-argues the case, or a request to unprotect a title made before the draft is ready, adds another archived refusal to the history, and the next administrator will read it.

That is where an experienced editor earns their place: deciding which route is open, assembling the sources, writing the draft, and making the request in the form each venue expects. Our page repair service handles restoration and rebuilding, and a free page health check will tell you which routes your record leaves open.