Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Snowball clause (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. FCYTravis 04:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that deleting this will re-open the MFD on DRV and your head will explode. [ælfəks] 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Snowball clause

The very idea of this is disruptive to all the good things that Wikipedia does. The idea of not giving all users--particular on deletion matters--a fair alloted time frame to present thoughts, ideas, and ideals, is a sham. Delete and salt. Someguy555 03:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While I agree that abandoning all process in the name of efficiency is counter-productive, there are still some things (such as bad RfA's, articles that should be speedily kept due to bad-faith noms or misguided reasoning, etc.) where this guideline applies. It's good food-for-thought when dealing with issues that are clearly non-controversial. — NMChico24 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:SNOW is where idealism and reality collide on Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clarify I do not think this page is going to be deleted, nor do I think it should. I consider WP:SNOW to be a simple shorthand for a specific case of WP:IAR, to be used in non-controversial closes where the outcome is monumentally obvious. That is fine. But I am a bit perturbed by this recent effort to give this some "official" guideline or policy type tag. Aside from the fact that enshrining an example of Ignoring All Rules as an Official Rule is illogical and contradictive, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for it. As an example, in the first deletion discussion, many people voted Keep based on the fact that this is just an essay. Let's just leave it as an essay and move on from this WP:LAME debate. —Nate Scheffey 04:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.