How to stop a Wikipedia page being deleted

Can you stop a Wikipedia page being deleted?

Often, yes, as long as the subject qualifies for an article and the problem is one that editing can fix. The deletion policy says so in terms: if editing can address all the relevant reasons for deletion, that should be done instead of deleting the page. Deletion on Wikipedia is decided by policy and evidence, so the way to stop it is to remove the reason for it.

What cannot be fixed by editing is a lack of coverage. If no independent, reliable sources have written about the subject in any depth, no amount of rewriting will change the result, and the realistic aim shifts to a sensible alternative or a better attempt later.

Start by identifying the process you are facing, because each runs on its own clock:

What should you do first when a page is tagged for deletion?

Read the tag, the reason and the history before changing anything. The tag tells you the process. The reason tells you what you need to fix. A speedy deletion tag names a lettered criterion. A proposed deletion carries a short rationale. An Articles for Deletion nomination links to a discussion page where the nominator explains the case, and that statement sets the terms for the whole discussion.

Then check three things:

• The history. If a recent edit introduced the problem, such as a promotional rewrite or a block of copied text, restoring an earlier version may answer the nomination on its own.
• The sources. Make a list of the best independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. That list matters more than anything you will write.
• Earlier deletions. If the article was deleted before and recreated, the earlier discussion matters, and the rules on recreation apply.

Our guides to proposed and speedy deletion and to Articles for Deletion explain each process in detail. This guide is about what to do while the clock is running.

How do you respond to a speedy deletion tag?

If you created the page, press the "Contest this speedy deletion" button inside the tag and explain on the talk page why the criterion does not apply. Do not remove the tag yourself. The speedy deletion policy says the creator may remove the tag only for a handful of technical criteria, and for all others must use that button, which opens a pre-formatted section on the talk page. Any other editor may remove the tag, and that removal is treated as a good-faith sign the deletion is controversial and should go through another process.

Contesting does not guarantee survival. The page can still be deleted if it meets the criterion, so the useful response is to fix the problem the criterion describes:

If the page is deleted anyway, the policy points to deletion review for disagreements over whether a speedy deletion was correct, and to requests for undeletion for some criteria.

How do you contest a proposed deletion?

Remove the proposed deletion tag and explain why, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. The proposed deletion policy says any editor, including the article's creator, may object by removing the tag, and that doing so permanently cancels the proposal. A page can be proposed for deletion only once.

Cancelling the proposal does not end the matter. The editor who proposed deletion can still nominate the page at Articles for Deletion, so the objection is worth far more if it fixes the problem at the same time. If the rationale was "no reliable sources", add them. If it was "reads like an advertisement", trim the promotional text. A tag removed with no improvement is often followed by a discussion that the article then loses.

Unsourced biographies of living people follow a stricter version. Once a biography with no sources at all has been properly tagged, the tag may not be removed until at least one reliable source supporting a statement about the person has been added. If none appears within seven days, the article can be deleted.

If a page has already been deleted through proposed deletion, it can normally be restored on request through Wikipedia's requests for undeletion, although the policy warns it may then be nominated for a full discussion.

What actually helps during an Articles for Deletion discussion?

Improving the article and making one clear, sourced case. The Articles for Deletion instructions say editors are welcome to keep editing during the discussion, for example to address the points raised, and that significant edits can be noted in the discussion. If the improvements answer the nomination, the nominator may withdraw it and the discussion can be closed early as a speedy keep.

Wikipedia has a name for this. The Heymann Standard is invoked when an article has been improved enough during a discussion to change the outcome. It takes its name from an early article that went from an unsourced two-sentence stub to one citing fourteen independent sources within three days of nomination, and was overwhelmingly kept.

What makes the difference in practice:

1. Sources, not assertions. Discussions are not decided by a head count, and closers weigh arguments by the policy and evidence behind them. Three in-depth independent articles outweigh any number of comments saying the subject is well known.
2. Quality over quantity. The instructions warn that adding poorly sourced content or weak sources can backfire, by suggesting good sources cannot be found.
3. Openness. Participants are asked to disclose whether they have a vested interest in the article. A short, open comment from the subject's side, with sources, is entirely proper.
4. Restraint. One comment that sets out the sources is worth more than replies to every participant.

If the discussion ends with no consensus, the deletion policy says the page is kept. A thinly attended discussion can, however, be closed as a soft deletion, which is restorable on request.

What alternatives to deletion can you propose?

Merging, redirecting, moving to draft and trimming the article back are all recognised alternatives, and the deletion policy lists them because they are often better outcomes than deletion. Proposing one is a legitimate move in a deletion discussion, not a concession.

• Merge. Short articles unlikely to grow can be merged into a larger one. A founder covered mainly in connection with a company, or a product covered mainly as part of its maker, are common cases.
• Redirect. The title points to a related article, and the old text stays in the page history. For a person known only for one event, the biographies policy says a merge and redirect to the event is usually better than a separate biography. What happens after a redirect, and how one can later become an article again, is covered in our guide to redirected pages.
• Move to draft. A recently created article with potential can be moved to the draft space for improvement. The policy limits this: articles older than about 90 days should not be moved to draft without agreement at a deletion discussion, and drafts left unedited for six months can be deleted.
• Cut back. An article on a notable subject with too many unsupported claims can be reduced to a short, well-sourced stub.

Deletion is also the wrong tool for a disagreement about content. The policy says disputes over what an article should say are not resolved by deleting it, and that discussions which are really content disputes can be closed and sent back to the talk page.

What backfires when a page faces deletion?

Anything that looks like an attempt to manipulate the process. Each of the following is covered by a specific rule, and each tends to make deletion more likely:

• Removing the deletion notice. The Articles for Deletion instructions say you must not remove the banner, blank the article or turn it into a redirect during a discussion. An edit filter puts the banner back automatically.
• Canvassing. Wikipedia's canvassing guideline treats non-neutral notices, messages sent to people chosen for their likely views, and off-wiki appeals by email or messaging as disruptive.
• Recruiting supporters. The deletion policy says it is inappropriate to ask people outside Wikipedia to join a discussion to sway it. Such comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but they can be tagged as coming from accounts with few or no other edits.
• New or extra accounts. Using more than one account to support a position is forbidden. The instructions say such comments will be discounted and the person behind them will likely be blocked indefinitely.
• Moving the page. Renaming an article during a discussion is not banned, but the instructions warn it can confuse the discussion badly.
• Recreating it after deletion. A substantially similar copy can be deleted on sight under G4, and a title recreated repeatedly can be protected so that only experienced editors or administrators can create it.

What can you do if the page is deleted anyway?

Ask the administrator who deleted it, then use the review route that matches the process. The deletion policy sets out the options:

• Proposed deletion and some speedy deletions. Ask at requests for undeletion. Pages removed by proposed deletion can normally be restored on request.
• A deletion discussion. Take it to deletion review, but only to argue that the closer misread the consensus, that there was a serious procedural error, or that significant new information has emerged. Deletion review is not a second chance to repeat the same arguments.
• A deletion for poor content. If the page was deleted for lacking content or having inappropriate content, the policy says a better article on the same subject can simply be written, with no need for review.

Even after an Articles for Deletion discussion ends in deletion, the instructions say you can ask the closing administrator for a copy of the deleted content to work from. Our guide on restoring a deleted Wikipedia page covers each route in detail.

Is a deletion fight worth taking on alone?

Sometimes. If a proposed deletion has landed on an article whose subject is plainly covered by major independent publications, removing the tag and adding three of those sources is a quick, proper fix that anyone can make.

An Articles for Deletion discussion is harder, for reasons built into the process. The window is about a week. The outcome turns on whether the sources are independent, reliable and in depth, and subjects routinely overrate their own coverage: interviews, press releases, sponsored features and trade listings all feel like evidence and are dismissed in a sentence by experienced participants. A comment from the subject's side is read with the conflict of interest guideline in mind. And the discussion is archived permanently, so a weak defence becomes part of the record the next reviewer reads.

Our page repair work begins with an honest view of the sources, which sometimes means advising that a merge or redirect is the best result available. Where the subject does qualify, we find and assess the coverage, prepare neutral improvements to the article, and draft a single policy-based case for the discussion. No one can guarantee an outcome. If a page of yours is tagged now, a free page health check is the quickest way to find out where it stands.