Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the discussion was closed correctly, or the decision should be overturned. Each user can say if he or she wants to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.

A page should stay listed here for at least 5 to 7 days. After that time, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do, and take appropriate steps. If the consensus was that the discussion was closed correctly, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.


Current requests[change source]

Thomas Abt[change source]

deleted as "‎(QD A4: The page is about a person, group, company, product or website, and does not claim notability)"

meets wp:creative, "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Slowking4 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Meets A4 as the article did not assert why the person was notable. -Djsasso (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexandra Horowitz[change source]

deleted as "‎(QD A4: The page is about a person, group, company, product or website, and does not claim notability)"

meets wp:creative, "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Slowking4 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it qualifies for QD A4 to me. A4 sets a lower bar than even notability - the article in question is a mere listing of the person's published works, and does not even assert that the person is notable. Whether the person is actually notable or not, would be something to be discussed at RfD. Chenzw  Talk  16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ilse Arts[change source]

The request here was closed as kept by Eptalon despite there being "zero" keep votes. The article fails WP:GNG per the nominator, Chenzw's, statement. IWI (chat) 19:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the closing admin informed me on IRC that it was a "political decision", based on the idea of treating Olympians and Paralympians equally. If reliable sources don't cover Paralympians as much as Olympians, this is not our fault or problem. We reflect the attitude of mainstream society; not change it (as said by Darkfrog24). We should be as biased as reliable sources, as that is our job. IWI (chat) 00:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
As the closing admin, I'll comment once more: Supposing that we admit that the Paralympic and the Olympic games are equal in notabiliy, then winning a medal in one is the same as winning a medial in the other. Yes, I know, that press coverage is much less in the Paralympics than it is with the olympics.Also note: a closutr of an RfD is a decision by an admin, it is not an automatism. We don't need admins to simply count the number of votes of each side, and then d what the side with more votes wants. So, given our situation, and a comment by a long-standing contributor, Gotanda, I took a political decision: Mrs Arts had a car accident, and has been using a wheelchair for a long time. Not only for Mrs Arts, but also for many other wheeelchair users, it is important to see them for what they achieved, and not look at what they can no longer do. Given my very first statement, about the two competitions being equal, Simple English Wikipedia must not exclude a wheelchair user who won a Paralympic medal (at a team sport). Yes, the decision I took was a political one, but I don't think it was a bad one. --Eptalon (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, the point at issue is that the close should reflect editors' comments. Not to say, of course, that your feelings are not entirely admirable: just to say that in this capacity the closer is supposed to be a mechanism! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
To continue from Macdonald-ross's comment above, there is very little precedent on other Wikimedia projects where the effect on readers of an article's existence has been considered to override the general notability guideline; perhaps it shpuld be discussed more thoroughly in a community space. I will also note that, as you apparently have a view contrary to those of all other editors who participated, it would probably have been better if you added a !vote rather than closing it yourself, leaving it for an administrator with less strong views on the topic to assess community input rather than deciding it in their favor. Best, Vermont (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: Thank you for the reply. While you are correct that the closing admin does not simply count the votes, they do determine consensus. There is no way any person could reasonably determine from that RFD that consensus was to keep. You shouldn’t take into account who did the votes either in my opinion. Comments by IPs should not be taken with any more merit than those by more experienced editors; the content of the comments should be taken into account. The "delete" voters cited the relevant guidelines in relation to the article's notability. For these reasons, I do not see your decision in the closure of this RFD to be reasonable. IWI (chat) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support keeping the article. It meets en:WP:NOLYMPICS, which states "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". Ms. Arts has won a medal at the Paralympic Games, so she is presumed notable. Some of the sports notability requirements are less obvious because they only need to have done a certain thing (as in this case) or played in certain leagues (such as the association football leagues listed here to be considered notable: one doesn't need references to show anything beyond that to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Hmm. It was my understanding from comments by Djsasso at a previous RfD, as well as Chenzw, that the General Notability Guideline overrides any specific notability guideline (hence the name, general). This is because it is impossible to write an article within the rules without enough sources. Are you saying that if there were no reliable sources it could still be kept under NOLYMPICS. Because that does not sound right to me. An article must first have enough reliable coverage to be included. IWI (chat) 22:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: There should be a reliable source to show that the person did the thing (in this case, won a medal at the Paralympic Games). This article has that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: In my eyes, an article should pass GNG and the specific guideline to be included. This one fails GNG. IWI (chat) 22:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I was under the impression that what Djsasso says here is how it should work. IWI (chat) 22:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: en:Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which contains the text I quoted above, says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (The italics are mine.) That says that it only needs to meet one, not both. As for what Djsasso said, if you mean where he said "if they meet GNG it doesn't matter what NSPORTS says", I'd agree, but that just means that a person doesn't have to pass the sport-specific guideline if they already pass GNG. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Well the notability guidelines are ultimately based on media coverage. I think the most important thing in relation to notability is that there are enough reliable independent sources about the person. Everything else is secondary. If the guidelines say that this is not the case, I think they should be amended. Using the logic of "only having to meet one", you could technically have someone with no coverage in any source still being allowed an article, and that is not right. It is important to note that no guideline is a firm rule in any case. IWI (chat) 22:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: The guidelines are based on what makes someone/something notable. The way we show that notability is by 1) saying what the notable thing is and 2) using a source to provide evidence of the notable thing. So it's the combination of a notable thing and a supporting source that shows notability. A source alone doesn't do that: people get mentioned in the media for things that do not make them notable (for example, being born, getting married, dying, graduating from high school or college, being in a man-on-the-street interview). This article mentions a thing that the guideline says is notable, and gives a source for it. You're entitled to your opinion on whether the guidelines are adequate, and you are entitled to consider them non-binding because they aren't policies, but as far as notability, guidelines are all we have. If you're going to say that we need more in this case because WP:Notability is only a guideline, then another person could make the case that we don't need any sources at all because en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources is also only a guideline. If you think a guideline should be changed, you're welcome to propose a change. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
You make some good points. In any case, the RfD should not have been closed as keep as the consensus could not possibly have been interpreted as being that. A closing admin's job is to determine consensus from others, not decide it from their own views. It would have been better if Eptalon had voted keep himself. As for the article itself, we shall see what others think. IWI (chat) 22:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
It is also the closing admin's job to evaluate guidelines/policies and the arguments made in the discussion, not just to count how many people say keep and how many say delete. Sometimes that makes the decision go against what the consensus appears to be. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
If the admin can decide for themselves what should happen to the article against a clear consensus, why should we bother with the RfD process in the first place? As stated above, consensus isn't a vote, but in this case, the consensus was fairly clear. Maybe if Eptalon had have added this as a vote, then the consensus could then be considered to be in the opposite direction. I think admins and crats should keep their opinions out when closing anything based on community consensus. IWI (chat) 23:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this case yet so I am saying this in general and not specific to this case. Consensus at a single Rfd discussion can't override policy. It is an admins job to weigh how much the arguments have a basis in policy/guideline. They can in rare cases say there is "no consensus" as opposed to "keep" if the arguments in the discussion do not align with policy. But like I said, I haven't yet looked to see if that is the case here. -Djsasso (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Since my comments where mentioned above, I should maybe make them a bit more clear. As someone who was actually heavily involved in the creation and shaping of NSPORTS (including what is in NOLYMPICS) over the years I can tell you the intention of subject notability guidelines are meant to be used as rules of thumb as to when an article is at a very high likelihood of meeting GNG. They are meant to help people in discussions to realize when there are likely sources out there that aren't already on the article. They meant to do things like protect pre-internet athletes who are notable but to prove it likely means going to physical newspaper archives at libraries or whatever to prove. You can think of them as a bit of a stay of execution, however that stay is not permanent and if challenged they can be deleted as long as the nominator did a good faith search for such sources and could find none. People often think that meeting one of the SNGs means it automatically gets kept, that isn't true. But the opposite is also true, not meeting it doesn't mean that it automatically gets deleted. GNG in the end is the arbiter of all, if it has multiple sources that prove notability it gets an article full stop. There is an FAQ at en:Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ that we created to help people understand the purpose of NSPORTS. I should point out that the quote that Auntof6 quotes is one that has been battled over for years but we haven't be able to find a suitable replacement, it actually means you have to have sources that prove they meet the criteria below. The or doesn't mean they can meet either the SNG or the GNG just that you have to have sources if you say they meet the GNG or SNG. -Djsasso (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I also feel I should correct Auntof6's very incorrect view of what notability is. In wikipedia terms Notability is the presence of sources that talk about the subject in depth. It is not the combination of a thing that makes them notable and a source. The multiple sources themselves is what makes them notable (though of course the sources will be about some thing, but that thing can be anything). What she is referring to when she says being born or man on the street interviews is called routine coverage and would fail the requirement of being "in depth" when determining notability. To be honest I am a little shocked you have edited wikipedia this long and had notability completely backwards. -Djsasso (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I find fault in the closing admin injecting their personal opinion and overriding the community's consensus on this item. Furthermore, policy and guideline changes should only be made with community consensus and should never be considered the onus of a single person, regardless of their status as an editor or administrator. The governing body of any Wikipedia project is the community itself. The guidelines are a historical documentation of the community's will. Those guidelines/policies are able to be changed, and sometimes should be changed, but only at the direction of the community. The current direction is to establish notability with significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources. A subject may, indeed, be notable; however, the burden is on the editor to prove that notability. If the notability is not proven with these sources, then notability is not established. My suggestion is this discussion be closed to further comment immediately, and the article be sent back to requests for deletion should a member of the community find it still lacking proof of notability. Lastly, I remind all of my fellow sysops we are to weigh the statements of individual editors and determine how the scales have decided the issue at hand. Closing sysops should not have participated in the discussion, nor should they have strong opinions on the subject matter at hand. We cannot and should not put our thumbs on the scale to overrule a consensus. Doing so undermines the community's trust in our toolkit. Operator873talkconnect 14:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above by Operator873. I had originally planned to start this as a second RfD, but found DRV to be more appropriate. A second RfD should be started. The main aim of the disussion was not really about the article, but whether it is appropriate for an administrator to close a RfD as kept (against a consensus) from their own opinions. I hope Eptalon, and any other admins, do not repeat such conduct again. Considering the main job of a bureaucrat is to determine consensus in very important discussions including requests for adminship, I find this quite concerning. Should we now have to worry about an RfA being closed as unsuccesful with no oppose votes? I would imagine not, but as Operator said above, such conduct undermines the community's trust in the admin toolkit. IWI (chat) 16:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
An admin doesn't just weigh consensus, but also the arguments have to be weighed against policy. If none of the keep/delete votes in a discussion are based in policy an admin can decide the keep/delete. So yes an admin could very well close an RfA as unsuccessful with no oppose votes. Votes in an RfA have to be policy based. If consensus on a given policy has changed then a discussion to change the policy needs to be made at which point another RfA can be held. But to sum up, yes an admin can close with no votes matching their close if all the comments in a discussion are not policy based. -Djsasso (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Yes I know that, but I don't see how it applies here. What policy was Eptalon weighing against when he closed the RfD as kept for the reason "I consider the Paralympics to be equal to the Olympic games"? Were the comments by Chenzw and four other editors not based on policy? The reason all of the editors voted delete was because there wasn't enough coverage in reliable sources to consider the person notable, which is ultimatley backed by the verifiability policy. IWI (chat) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say it was the case here, you were talking in generalities by saying "Should we now have to worry about an RfA being closed as unsuccesful with no oppose votes?". That being said I would likely have voted Keep in this discussion because they met NSPORTS and a medalist at the paralympics almost definitely has sources which likely have to be found in newspaper archives from their country although being it was for a team event it might be slightly less likely. Essentially I would have done so for the same reason Gotanda mentions in the discussion (whose comment really is a keep comment). At this point I would however, send it back to Rfa and then vote Keep in it. It is highly likely only a quick google search was done for sources. Likely a more in depth one needs to be done. -Djsasso (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I should also point out there are essentially 2 keeps and 3 deletes in the discussion....so Eptalon's keep isn't as outrageous as it seems. Remember its not a vote count. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
There are indeed some situations where an RfA could be closed as unsuccessful with no oppose votes, but it was not these situations that I was referring to. I was talking about a clear cut case where someone should be promoted, but a crat has something against the editor in some way not related to policy. I'm sure a decent search for sources was done by Chenzw beforehand. There is no evidence that anyone has found to suggest the person has enough coverage to be notable. Perhaps there is enough somewhere, but none has been found. Thus, it fails GNG. To answer your second point, I don't think we can really count the comments by Slowking4 as they were the author; it is inevitable that the author of the article will want to keep it. In any case, their comments are the same as Gotanda's: that it meets NATHLETES. Neither gave evidence to demonstrate that the subject had enough coverage to be notable. NATHLETES is simply a guide to whether a person is likely to have enough coverage to be notable. I will put it back to RfD and we shall see if anyone can find any more sources. IWI (chat) 19:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Author of article has just as valid a !vote as anyone else taking part in an Rfd. And in general stating they meet NSPORTS is often enough in a discussion as the point of NSPORTS is to indicate there are almost 100% sources for this, we just can't easily get them and invoking it is intended to act as an indication to say "reasonable time" needs to be given to actually get them, and that we should not yet delete, its considered just as strong an argument as saying it doesn't meet GNG usually. en:Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ Q4 talks about this. Reasonable time in some circumstances could be years. And I am not saying everytime it meets NSPORTS it should be kept, far from it. I just think there are certain situations where we need to be careful we aren't being too quick to delete. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Just as a final note: I wasn't suggesting that the author had no right to vote or that their vote should not count, just that it is a given that the author of an article will usually want the article to be kept. I have started the RfD here. The way I see it, if no sources are found in a week to demonstrate notablilty it should not be kept. If more sources are found in the future, the article can then be created with those sources. Doing otherwise on a small wiki like ours will lead to a lot of articles about unnotable people to stay forever. IWI (chat) 19:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Category:Subdivision of the United Kingdom[change source]

Not sure why this was closed as delete. Consensus is clearly to keep. The purpose of an RfD is for editors to determine whether an article should be deleted by policies and guidelines, not for the closing admin to choose whatever they want. Naleksuh (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there were two editors who voted: me and Djsasso. I voted keep, and Djsasso seemed to vote for a weak delete (please correct me if different). It was my understanding that we were at an agreement that there was no harm in keeping. Auntof6 also made comments that didn't seem to lean either way. Consensus did not seem to lean to delete. No policies or guidelines were cited by the closing admin Eptalon. I hate to say this, but it does seem like another case of a self-opinion close. I know this is nothing major (as it is only a redirect) but this behavior can't happen IMO. A reminder that you are supposed to determine consensus, taking comments about policies and guidelines into account. IWI (chat) 21:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: For what it's worth, keep in mind that the nomination counts as a "vote" to delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello, ImprovedWikiPimprovemenmt: Once again: Admins are the people who take decisions, a Rfd is not a vote, even if it may look like one to some people. And Rfds need to be closed. So a decision is taken. But what I see more and more: If there is an RfD that is closed in another way than you expect you take this to deletion review, and perhaps get another round of voting. So: Accept the decisions admins take (they were elected for this), and focus on providing better content.--Eptalon (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Its a bit like Brexit: In 2016, 52% (rounded) were in favor of leaving the European Union - the UK left the EU January 31st, 2020. It is irrelevant, if those who voted knew what they'd vote for, or whether the majority of those who were in favor of staying in the EU didn't take part in the referendum, nor even if any of those who voted changed their opinion since then. --Eptalon (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Eptalon. First of all, I did not take this to deletion review, Naleksuh did. Believe me, I know this very well. You don’t need to tell me that discussions are not votes. RfDs are not votes, but they are a place for the community to come to a consensus by discussing the policies and guidelines involved. You have seemed to ignore the discussion entirely and take the decision for yourself. And no, I will not simply accept the decisions taken by admins. They are members of the community like the rest of us. Your opinions are not above those of the community, and thus you can’t simply close RfDs without taking the community discussion into account. IWI (chat) 09:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
in the current case: 1 delete, 1 keep, and one that can be read either way. Plus one comment. Clear keep?

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: The admins are supposed to take the discussion into account, but that doesn't mean the decision will go according to how many people "voted" each way. The decision is to be made according the the arguments made for and against deleting. That being said, here are the arguments made and how I would have evaluated them:

  • "Almost zero pageviews." This shouldn't be a criterion for deleting any page, especially a redirect. Even zero incoming links wouldn't be a criterion.
  • "Unneeded category." Unneeded according to whom/what? It's a redirect; you expect it to be unneeded most of the time.
  • "Wrong title." "Redirects can have the wrong name." "In case the wrong name is used, it would redirect." It's normal for a redirect to have a wrong title -- it redirects to the correct title.
  • "What is improved by removing it?" The only thing I can think of is that we'd see one less entry when looking through some of our databases. However, we usually say that redirects are cheap (although that usually applies to articles rather than categories), so that wouldn't be much of a consideration.

If I missed any, let me know. I did leave out some that seemed to me to be personal opinion not based on any kind of policy or procedure, because that does not need to be taken into account.

Based on all of that, I am going to reverse the deletion. In taking that action, I am making no statement about whether I think the page should exist, just that I think the case wasn't made for deletion. Anyone who wishes can open a new RFD if they feel they can make a better case.

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Please do not make an issue of thanking me for this, nor of piling on to the admin whose decision you disagreed with. You are correct when you say that admins' opinions are not above those of the community, but everyone here is doing their best and there will be occasional disagreements. The way you phrased some of your comments border on accusing someone of acting in bad faith. Please try to assume good faith and just make your case without making it personal.

Now I usually stay out of most RFDs so that I'm able to be an uninvolved admin and thus able to close them. However, I will try to comment on them more in case I can add to discussions like this one, in the hope that I can make valid points that will help the closing admins. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Hello all, I want to challnge above closure, based on the following: As I wrote further up, in the discussion above we had one delete vote (by the nominator), one keep vote (by ImprovedWikiImprovement), and one borderline delete vote (which can also be seen as a keep, by DJSasso. So, its basically a 1:1, with some interpretation as to whether DJSasso's vote is more of a keep, or a delete. So, you toss a coin, and depending on whether it is heads or tails, you keep or delete the page. I find it totally inappropriate that this page is used to overturn an admin decision, when this admin clearly acted in good faith. Taking the decision to keep is equally problematic, because it all depends on how you judge the vote that can be seen either way. (And its just interepting this vote differently). If there's no gross negligence, but simply an admin taking a decison in a perfectly respectable case, this decision must not be overturned by another admin. Comments? --Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The entire point of this page is to review and possibly overturn admin decisions, and we always assume good faith. It is completely independent of "gross negligence". Also, you seem to have a small misunderstanding of potential discussion outcomes. When there's a split, an admin's close isn't a supervote to decide between the two; rather, it is often best to close as "no consensus" or relist it for more discussion. You aren't forced to pick one side or the other, and your decisions are not uncontestable. Yes, we elect administrators to determine and enact the consensus of discussions, but if people disagree on what the result should have been they have every right to question it. We give trusted community members more buttons, not dictatorial decision-making power. Best, Vermont (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Vemont, that's not what I was trying to say, let's rephrase: In a situation, where one elected admin took a decision to keep, or to delete (which, is irrelevant here), this decision should be respected by the other admins. After all, the admin was exterting a function given to him by the community. Re-voting (or making the community re-vote) an issue until I like the outcome is not an option. This is a small wiki, and the adminsh sohlud act as a team; this involves respectiing admin decisions that were taken in good faith. --Eptalon (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Admins can make mistakes. It is assumed that all admins act in good faith all of the time. DRV is to review any errors that an admin has made. Nobody is accusing you of acting in bad faith. IWI (chat) 14:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not a remotely acceptable reply. Again, you were not elected to have dictatorial powers, and your decisions can be questioned. The same argument you made here can be applied if I were to, hypotheticaly, block your account; would I not be exerting a function given to me by the community? Yes, but that function would not have been exercised in line with community consensus. The point of this page is to determine if a RfD close was in line with community consensus. You're not even arguing that your close was justified, you're arguing that other contributors don't even have a right to say it wasn't. That's not remotely in line with the concept of every administrator and editor being equally valued. If you want the admins to be a happy team, which for the most part we are, don't take criticism as heresy and disagreement as malice. Any administrative action can be questioned by any member of our community, and no one is immune from responsibility. Vermont (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
In future I would suggest you instead vote on RfDs you have opinions on or at least not close them. Your closing message on this one read more like a delete vote than a determination of consensus. And yes, to agree with Vermont, all admin actions can be scrutinised by our community. Your suggestion that the deletion review page should only be for gross negligence or acts in bad faith is absurd, as if an admin was acting in bad faith, they would not remain an admin for very long. Presumably, admins never act in bad faith. Also, admins are equals to other editors; they do not have extra power to decide how an RfD should end up. I will say again that such suggestions from an administrator greatly undermines our trust in the admin toolset. IWI (chat) 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 (change conflict)  A few observations from me about this particular RfD, and if you have known me for a while, you will know that this is going to be another mini-essay/history lesson:

  1. RfDs do not override policies and guidelines on the wiki. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion itself specifically requests that nominating editors read and understand "[t]he Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion" (note: not QD policy). This is why we can have RfDs ending up with a SNOW or "speedy keep" result. The takeaway here is that RfD nominations, !votes, and closures must be informed by policy. You cannot, for example (and this is a crude one), nominate a random article with just the reason "I don't like it" and expect it to be gone, even if said RfD somehow gains a majority of delete votes (thankfully, the community has not gone mad enough to make such a scenario a reality). More often than not, disagreements/discussion in an RfD are a result of different editors using different yardsticks and interpretations of policy (particularly the entire umbrella of notability guidelines).
  2. This particular RfD involves the discussed deletion of a category (soft) redirect. The category redirect was created as a result of Wwikix moving Category:Subdivision of the United Kingdom to Category:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom, and subsequently re-categorizing the child categories to use the plural form of the category name. This action is consistent with the categorization guideline for set categories.
  3. This wiki has an assortment of RfDs involving category naming as noted below. Do note that the list is not to be confused with the other kind of RfDs about whether articles should be categorized in X way in the first place (example: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Category:People who were cremated).
  4. Particularly observant editors may realise that the 2018 and 2019 RfDs above are not strictly about category naming, but these two particular examples do not detract from the main point that I am about to make.
  5. Now, in the above few RfDs, there is a mix of RfDs that (1) closed with a category redirect being created and (2) closed with outright deletion. In my view, the distinguishing factor in those RfD results, was the evaluation as to whether it is reasonably likely that an informed editor would categorize future articles under the old name. Category redirects, like ordinary redirects, are an aid to point to the correct name, except that mainspace redirects are for readers while category redirects are for editors. This is consistent with WP:CATRED and the essay that is linked in the CATCRED guideline.
  6. It is not in dispute that Category:Subdivision of the United Kingdom (singular) is incorrect per our categorization guidelines. What should be evaluated is thus, would a future informed editor be reasonably likely to attempt to categorize articles in the same way? ImprovedWikiImprovment and Djsasso appear to disagree on this.
  7. About Dj's vote: this, to me, looks more of a delete vote than a keep vote. What Dj wrote in their vote can be split into three parts:
    • Generally I am only really a fan of Category redirects when they are absolutely necessary.: this is consistent with en:WP:CATCRED, which prescribes "limited circumstances" under which a category redirect is made.
    • There is no harm in keeping it of course.: Djsasso has consistently held the view that redirects are cheap: 1, 2, 3.
    • But I personally would delete it.: If anything, the fact that Dj said this, despite their general view that redirects are cheap, appears to me that this is a Delete vote from him, and that he does not believe that this particular category redirect is "absolutely necessary".
  8. The real question here is, is there consensus in the RfD as to whether this category redirect meets the criteria in point (5)? Perhaps not, but it is also hard to tell when RfD participation is generally low on this wiki. Chenzw  Talk  18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, my vote was clearly a delete because I said I would delete. Little surprised it was confused. And think it was more than ridiculous that this was brought here on a Rfd with only two contrary votes. Very disruptive and the comments above by IWI are shameful and bordering on attacks. Admins describe their reasoning all the time, which often goes more in depth than just saying "Kept", just because Eptalon described why he decided the way he did, does not make it a bad close especially when there was one keep and one delete. I am very disappointed in the ridiculousness above. -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 (change conflict) @Djsasso: Not sure why you have referred to my comments as shameful. Could you give examples? They tended to mirror comments by Vermont. Were his comments "shameful" too? I clearly stated that your vote leaned to delete above. IWI (chat) 22:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes I also don't like his. They appear to me to be misconstruing what Eptalon is saying just so you all can pile on and attack him. That fact that this was even brought here is completely ridiculous. (not that it can't be brought here, to be clear so I also don't get jumped on) But just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. -Djsasso (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I was simply adding my views to this (which was not started by me, by the way). I'm not attacking him and neither is Vermont. If you actually read what he wrote, you will see why Vermont said what he did. IWI (chat) 22:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to contribute further to this discussion. I will say that I do not and would never attack people and feel upset that that could have been how it was viewed. I am sorry to Eptalon if he felt attacked by me; that was never my intention. As I said above, I don't think Eptalon acted in bad faith. I don't want any more negativity. Let's just improve the encyclopedia, which is what we are all here to do. :) kind regards, IWI (chat) 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)