Wikipedia deletions that made the news, and what they show

Why look at Wikipedia deletions that made the news?

Because they are the best-documented deletions there are. Each one has a public trail on Wikipedia, in the logs, the archived discussions and the page histories, and each was reported by journalists who explained the outcome to readers outside the project. Reading the two side by side shows what actually decided each case.

The six cases below were chosen for what they teach, with a preference for people and organisations. For each one this guide gives what happened, with dates, the Wikipedia process involved, and the lesson for a subject whose page is being reviewed now. It reports what the cited sources say and draws no conclusions about the people involved. Wikipedia's own summary of these episodes is in the section on deletions attracting public attention in its article Deletion of articles on Wikipedia.

Rules have changed since some of these cases. Where a lesson depends on a current rule, the rule cited is the one in force now.

What happened when Jimmy Wales's Mzoli's article was deleted in 2007?

It was speedily deleted 22 minutes after he created it, and it came back the same day once someone added sources. On 17 September 2007 Jimmy Wales, a co-founder of Wikipedia, created a one-sentence article about Mzoli's, a butcher's shop and restaurant near Cape Town. The page's own edit summary noted that he needed help finding reliable sources. An administrator deleted it under speedy deletion criterion A7, as an article about a company that did not indicate its significance.

About an hour after the deletion another editor had written a new, sourced version, and the original revisions were restored into its history. The new article went to Articles for Deletion later that day and was kept. The Los Angeles Times described the week-long argument that followed, which turned partly on whether a page by anyone else would have survived at all. A second nomination in 2009 was closed early as a keep.

The process: speedy deletion under A7, then a deletion discussion.

The lesson: A7 looks at what the page says, not who wrote it or who the subject is. A short page about a real business that does not say why it matters, with nothing independent to support it, can be deleted within minutes. The remedy here was the remedy available to anyone: a version that stated the subject's significance and cited sources for it. A7 still applies to people, organisations, web content and organised events in the main article space, and it is a lower bar than notability.

Why was Donna Strickland's Wikipedia draft declined before her Nobel Prize?

Because the reviewer judged that its references did not show she met the notability guideline. A draft biography of the Canadian physicist was created through Articles for Creation on 28 March 2018. On 23 May 2018 a reviewer declined it with the reason that the subject was not yet shown to meet notability guidelines. According to Quartz, the notice said the draft did not show significant coverage, as opposed to passing mentions, of her. The draft noted that she was an associate chair of physics at the University of Waterloo and a past president of the Optical Society.

On 2 October 2018 she was announced as a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, the first woman to win it since 1963, as The Guardian noted. A published article appeared about an hour and a half later. The draft's history shows no edits between the decline in May and the morning of the announcement. The case was widely reported as an example of the under-representation of women scientists on Wikipedia.

The process: an Articles for Creation decline.

The lesson: a decline is a judgment of the draft's references on the day it is reviewed, not a ruling on the person. Articles for Creation reviewers assess the sources the draft cites, and they look for independent coverage of the subject in depth. Positions and honours, however senior, need sources that discuss them. A decline can also be answered: the draft can be improved and resubmitted at any time. A draft that is declined and then left alone stays declined, and drafts not edited by a person for six months can be deleted under criterion G13. Our guide to declined drafts covers how to respond.

Why was Clarice Phelps's Wikipedia article deleted and then restored?

It was deleted because the discussion found too little independent coverage of her, and restored a year later after new coverage appeared. An article on Clarice Phelps, a nuclear chemist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory whose team took part in the discovery of element 117, tennessine, was created in 2018 by the physicist Jess Wade. It was nominated for deletion in early February 2019 and deleted after discussion on 11 February.

The closing statement explained that the strongest argument for deletion was the near absence of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The main material offered was a profile published by her employer, which participants agreed was not independent. A deletion review upheld the result. The article was recreated in April 2019 and deleted again the next day under speedy deletion criterion G4, as substantially the same as the version deleted after discussion, and the title was then protected against creation. Later that month an administrator restored it without discussion. That action was reversed within hours, and it became the subject of an arbitration case. A second deletion review, in May 2019, upheld the deletions.

In January 2020 a third deletion review was opened with a new draft. In the meantime Phelps had been featured in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists and covered in further sources. The closer found that two of the sources offered amounted to significant coverage and restored the article from draft in February 2020, noting that it could still be taken back to a deletion discussion.

The process: Articles for Deletion, deletion review, a G4 repost deletion, create protection, and a final deletion review.

The lesson: an employer's profile, a press release or an institution's own news page does not count towards notability, however accurate it is. Recreating a deleted article without new independent sources invites G4 and salting. The route that worked was the slow one: new independent coverage, a draft built on it, and a request through deletion review. Our guide to restoring a deleted page sets out those routes.

What happened in the 2021 deletion discussion on mass killings under communist regimes?

It ended in no consensus, so the article was kept, and the closers explained that outside attention had distorted the discussion. The article Mass killings under communist regimes was nominated for deletion on 22 November 2021, its fourth nomination under that title. The nomination argued, among other things, that the article combined separate events in a way the sources did not, which would be original research. The Daily Telegraph reported the nomination on 27 November.

The discussion was closed on 1 December 2021 by a panel of closers. Their statement said it was reportedly the largest deletion discussion in Wikipedia's history. It described the outside coverage as non-neutral, said it had brought in a large number of participants with a particular view, and treated that as canvassing. The panel counted roughly 145 participants in favour of keeping and 35 in favour of deleting, but said it had placed little weight on the raw count, and then weighed the arguments against the neutrality and verifiability policies. The result was no consensus to delete.

The process: Articles for Deletion with a panel close.

The lesson: publicity does not add weight to a discussion. When outside attention brings in participants who would not otherwise take part, closers say so and look past the numbers to the arguments. A subject who asks followers, staff or the press to weigh in is more likely to devalue the comments made for them than to help. The case also shows that no consensus keeps an article, and that a page can be nominated more than once over the years.

Why was Donald Trump's mug shot article nominated for deletion?

Because some editors thought it was too soon to treat a news photograph as an encyclopedia topic. The mug shot was taken in Georgia on 24 August 2023 and an article about it appeared almost at once. An editor first turned the article into a redirect, another reverted that, and the article was nominated at Articles for Deletion on 25 August. The nomination argued that a notable topic is sometimes better covered as part of a broader article, in this case the article on the Georgia prosecution.

Forbes reported the debate the same day, quoting editors on both sides. One argued that significant coverage did not settle the matter, because the subject needed long-term significance and Wikipedia is not a news organisation. Supporters described the image as historic. The discussion was closed as keep on 26 August under the snowball clause. The closer noted that participants had broadly rejected the merge and not-news arguments, pointing to the depth of coverage of the image itself.

The process: a contested blank-and-redirect, then Articles for Deletion closed early.

The lesson: pages about recent events, product launches, deals or controversies face the question of lasting significance. Wikipedia's essay on recentism describes the tendency for current matters to seem more important than they will later, and the guideline on notable events looks for lasting effects or coverage that continues over time. Where those doubts win, the usual result is a merge into a broader article rather than outright deletion. Where they lose, as here, it is because the coverage of the specific topic is deep, not merely plentiful.

Why did the Wikimedia Foundation take down an article in 2024?

Because the Delhi High Court ordered it. The article concerned a defamation suit brought by the news agency Asian News International against the Wikimedia Foundation in India. In October 2024 the court objected to the article and ordered pages about the case to be taken down. The Foundation suspended access to the English Wikipedia article for readers and editors. The Hindu reported on 21 October 2024 that this was the first time an English Wikipedia article had been taken down by the Foundation. On 9 May 2025 the Supreme Court of India set aside the takedown order, and access to the article was restored that month.

The process: an office action by the Wikimedia Foundation, taken under legal compulsion and outside the community's deletion processes.

The lesson: removal outside the community's processes does exist, but only in exceptional legal or safety cases, and only the Foundation does it. On English Wikipedia such deletions fall under criterion G9, and editors may not reverse them without the Foundation's permission. They are not an alternative route for a subject who disagrees with a deletion discussion. This guide records the takedown only and does not comment on the underlying dispute.

What do these Wikipedia deletion cases have in common?

In each case the decision turned on sources and process, not on the fame of the subject or the strength of feeling about it.

Two further patterns stand out. The coverage of a deletion is not the same as coverage of the subject; in the Phelps review, sources mainly about the earlier deletions were among those contested. And every step in these cases is still readable years later, which is why the first version of a page, and the first comment in its defence, matter so much. Our guide to what a failed attempt leaves behind covers that record.

Can a subject handle a high-profile deletion alone?

Sometimes. If the problem is simply that a draft or article does not cite the independent coverage that exists, adding those sources is the fix, and nobody needs special standing to do it. A declined draft can be resubmitted by anyone once the sources are in place.

The cases that went badly show where it is harder. A subject who cares about the result is likely to answer criticism with more of the same material, to recreate a deleted page in roughly the same form, or to ask supporters to take part, and each of those moves is visible, recorded and weighed against them. In the Phelps case it took a year and three deletion reviews to undo the effect of thin sourcing and a quick recreation.

An experienced editor helps by judging the sources the way reviewers will, choosing the route that fits the stage the page has reached, and keeping the subject's side of the record short and well founded. Our page repair service covers deleted and challenged pages, and a free page health check usually arrives within two working days. Our guide to who decides Wikipedia deletions explains the roles involved.