Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games

ATD resulting in no consenus

This is the exact problem with the recent obsession with ATD overriding all other deletion policies (such as WP:DEL-REASON). We now have a series of unsourced or poorly sourced articles consisting primarily of infoboxes no one advocated keeping kept due to a lack of consensus on multiple ATD options with no clear path forward regarding these articles. This also rejects the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games that these articles are broadly inappropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Because I guess this makes the best central ish place for User_talk:Liz#ooph and to a lesser extent User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estádio_Arena_do_Município_Verde and User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_17#AFDs. @AusLondonder I have zero issue with you raising this -- it is a problem, albeit one that has no answer. There is not enough useful participation at AfD to generate consensus so we either end up with slim, contentious closes or kicking the can down the road. This has the net result of either this outcome, or like the one @SportingFlyer raised where they have a viable case -- and maybe if people had the time/interest in participation the outcome of both of these would have been different. In this particular case, AusLondonder, I also think "this is controversial so let's go to AfD for more eyes instead of a Talk page merger discussion" (paraphrasing, obviously) doesn't work anymore, especially with a twenty year old sporting event being relatively niche in that the general community doesn't care what happens to these. Short of my "which and where?" relist, I'm not sure what action would have worked here. Welcome any thoughts. Star Mississippi 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi:, thanks for that. Just been reading through those discussions you linked which were quite interesting. I have also noticed a long-term decline in AfD participation.

I thought an AfD would be most appropriate as I saw several other pages on different years/countries participation had been previously deleted. I don't disagree with your close - the AfD itself was a mess and left the closer with few options. My frustration is that ATD is being invoked, often without any serious thought (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of the World Bank, London for a prime example) and resulting in inappropriate, poor-quality and useless articles being kept. AusLondonder (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It is clear to me that this information should live somewhere and that it does not need to have an individual article about it - "Country X at the Commonwealth Games" should be fine. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, I totally understand merge/redirect to X or Y in a hope consensus forms as to target but merge/redirect without proposing a target or proposing a red link is maddening as a closer because as @Liz has said, and you two well know from your AfD participation, we're closers, not magicians. I saw that World Bank one earlier and was torn so I didn't vote. I don't think the ATD is helpful there but I couldn't think of a policy-based reason against it so I didn't vote. yep, I'm part of the problem. Star Mississippi 21:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)