From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was nominated for deletion on May 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
This page was nominated for deletion on September 24, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep per WP:SK #6. |
[edit] Examples of controversial Snowballs
- Response to Radiants request : Controversial examples would be, for starters, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Snowball clause (2nd nomination) / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walrus / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (4th nomination).--PopUpPirate 19:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keeping Walrus was controversial? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say that Walrus qualifies as Speedy Keep (#3). Also, WP:MFD says that nominating proposals or guidelines for deletion is frowned upon; we rarely delete even failed proposals. So I'd say there was good reason for keeping both Walrus and WP:SNOW. I'm not sure about Al Gore; it seems that AFD renominations are becoming a problem. >Radiant< 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think there were some controversial claims to use SNOW during the userbox wars, but I don't want to go wade through those discussions to find them. GRBerry 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, those make a funny example. I mean, many of the debates on DRV weren't even about the particular box in question, but about how people were interpreting T1 or T2 or whatever at the time. It got pretty repetitive, and it wasn't clear to some that any progress was being made in those debates. In cases like that though, I think it's a bad time to use SNOW, simply because of the ill-will bred. It still hasn't dissipated, and the windows have been open for months. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples of NON-controversial Snowballs
Radiant! mentioned above that one of the motivations for creating SNOW was the occasional clueless RfA by a newbie with 50 edits. Does that provide any examples of uncontroversial SNOWs? How about Radiant's other example of why SNOW was written - DRVs where the only argument for recreation is so that the article can be deleted again, according to process? I've objected to that in the past, on the grounds that it's ghastly and wrong to reanimate the dead in order to re-execute them according to procedure. It didn't occur to me at the time that I was talking about SNOW. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good point... Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies contains (at a rough count) about 120 RFAs withdrawn by some admin or 'crat.
- In WP:DRV, SNOW is (usually) invoked not to close the current discussion on an article, but to argue against creating a future discussion of an article on AFD. I think that's an important difference. >Radiant< 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's certainly fair enough --PopUpPirate 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Although some 'crats erroneously cite it, RfAs are never snowballable in reality due to the way the RfA process works, where 'crats can close RfAs at any point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why was the third picture added?
I don't see why the 3rd picture was added to the essay. I have nothing against it, but it seems kind of random.--Grand Slam 7 20:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- The editor who removed it stated that it didn't add much and cluttered it up. I have to agree with that. — Seadog 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
