![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I would like to add the paragraph below (or a similar one) to the "What SNOW is not" section, because I think this section doesn't appropriately discuss the risks of Snow decisions. However, I would like to hear other editor's comments first.
It can also be argued that there is a reason that the normal AfD process takes 5 days, which is to ensure that all interested users, including experts on the topic and editors of the article in question, get a chance to contribute. Especially when the notability of a subject is in question it can easily happen that an article seems to have a snowball's chance in hell but this consensus may be turned around in the late stages, when experts on the issue become aware of the AfD nomination.
Malc82 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can 6 votes in 24 hours be counted as a SB?
perfectblue 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A merger between the a page about the urban legend of the Iraqi Killer bager and the factual page about the real life creature the Ratel (honey badger). Somebody put up a merge template and declared snow after only 6 votes. It's worth noting that proceedings were closed within 24 hours of the first vote and without the parent project or the page's creator being informed (they were unable to oppose the merger owing to not knowing about it). - perfectblue 08:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I was rereading this, and I noticed it had a bold part for uphill battles-- I'd actually written an essay on it awhile back at WP:UPHILL. I would link the statement to my essay, but that would be a bit egotistical, even for myself, and this article and it are slightly different. My article is mainly about the action of actually trying to save a snowball, whereas the way it's used here is more about things that are nearly snowballs. I would put it in 'see also', but again, that's a bit much, even for my ego, so I'd like to get at least a couple other opinions on it -- L u c id 09:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel the picture of hell is confusing. The big dome-lookin in the middle thing could be mistake for a really really big snowball - which to me suggests that whoever added that picture was trying to insert a subversive message into the article; namely that only a really really big snowball has a chance in hell - in other words, in order to force through unpopular decisions, you have to be a really really big dick. Also, the dome looks really sci-fi-ish, so even if people don't mistake it for a really really snowball, they might think it's a picture of future hell, or space hell, or possibly even robot hell - and therefore doesn't apply to the present-day, Earth-bound, human-created Wikipedia. -- Gpollock 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/cf38 by WP:SNOW please. cf38 talk 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else feel that WP:SNOW is overused particularly in AfD debates? I use WP:SNOW, but I believe that it should only be used in contexts for which consensus really is glaringly obvious and there's no chance of the opposite thing eventually happening - in 'speedy keep' cases, or for things which would be impossible to have a sourced, valid article on yet don't quite meet the speedy deletion criteria. What's with people saying speedy delete in AfD now when none of the criteria apply, anyway?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against the idea behind the snowball clause, but closing an AfD debate "Delete per WP:SNOW" is basically telling the author that their article didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing AfD. Is it me, or does that seem a bit inflammatory (no pun intended)? I think that we should change it to something along the lines of "the landslide clause", which is much more civil. Thoughts? J-ſtan Contribs User page 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to snowball delete? I don't believe so. If you have {keep, keep, speedy keep, keep} you can speedy keep, but not the other way around. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 13:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just wanted to say that i thought that when i went to a link saying that i should look at this page it was going to be another boring ass handbook written page in which i wouldn't even read execpt the first paragraph but when i read this and how they talk aboout snowballs and hell and even verify it with a picture i could barly stop laughing so to who ever did that i say thank you are awsome and that i Seth dalorane admin canidate approves of this page Seth dalorane ( talk) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to have a non-standard header. The <essay> tag auto-includes the page in Cat:WPessays. In that case, a link to WP:IAR in the see also section is fine. -- Newbyguesses ( talk) 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Why encourage the idea that a page's official "status" is the way to think about it? I'd love to see those tags all thrown out as so much policy creep, but I realize that some of them are necessary. Tagging policy as policy: fine. Tagging an essay you've written as an essay, so people don't get the wrong idea: cool. Implying that those tags matter by arguing about them: not so cool. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to get you guys too nervous, but right now, we're standing in an old dusty wikidrama-zone (see archives), have popped off the safety-tag that cooled it down last time, and have re-lit an old fuse we found lying around (see archives some more) , and are... just standing around? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Once the fuse is lit, Mr. Dynamite is not your friend.
Quoting the article:
It is hard to see how a test that can only be applied retroactively can prevent anything. Wanderer57 ( talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
For an essay, it is not necessary for an essay to agree with existing polic--ine3ed, essays can be a step in changing policy. ., However, when it gives advice that is directly contrary to policy, such as suggesting that speedy can be used in cases which it does not provide for, it had better say that it is contrary to the policy. DGG ( talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose adding language to the effect of strongly suggesting that the snowball clause not be invoked until at least 24 hours have passed, to give editors from all time zones equal opportunity to voice opinions. Any objections or suggestions on how to phrase it? — Quasirandom ( talk) 17:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Article says:
And I'm ROTFLing! ;-) ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 14:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've read this article quite a few times, but I still don't really know what it means. Can someone give a really simple explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezzamon ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i propose adding a new paragraph to that section.
Also, the Snowball clause should not be seen as an excuse to violate WP:CONSENSUS. Per WP:NOTVOTE, if 1,000 people vote to keep and the only person presenting an argument based on Wikipedia polices advocates deletion per those policies, the article will be deleted, regardless of the number of votes to the contrary. Misterdiscreet ( talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel compelled to point out that (according to a popular theory) at least one of the circles of hell is a vast frozen sheet of ice, where a snowball would actually do quite well. Doesn't NPOV insist that we represent the notable minority position that the chances of a snowball in hell (under some conditions) are darn near 100%? -- Ludwigs2 22:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Philman132 ( talk) 13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead a bit, for style, and to make reference to what I think are the appropriate essays and guidelines (this is not related to wp:IAR, but is much closer to wp:POINT and wp:NOTABUREAUCRACY). comments? -- Ludwigs2 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The reference to WP:CIVIL was removed. I restored it as I find civility does play a big part in WP:SNOW. Comments? Yintaɳ 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
“ | If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a desired outcome, don't keep pushing for it anyway. | ” |
I remember that the snowball clause once said something along the lines that if following a particular bureaucratic procedure will result in an inevitable outcome with a "snowball's chance in hell" of a different outcome, then there is no point in going through the procedure. Now it's changed to something entirely different. This clause has gone from an anti- WP:BUREAUCRACY position to practically endorsing it. -- Farix ( Talk) 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that Stevertigo has attempted to mark this as historical, I reverted because I disagree and see no consensus to do so. We are not a bureaucracy and this is not a guideline or policy so I see no reason to scrap this. If someone is annoyed with how this essay is used then they should bring the problem to the person they think is misusing it or to this talk page. They should not unilateral attempt decide something is historical. The historical tag should reflect the current status of the essay not dictate it and I see the ideas in this essay being practiced daily. Discussion welcome.
The snow ball clause allows us to avoid going through the motions of a bureaucracy when we all know what the result will be. That is all that is needed in defense of this page. If people mis-use it then the problem is with those people not this page. Chillum 04:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Steve please propose your reasons here in a reasonable fashion so that we may give your point of view proper consideration. The lack of information you have provided makes it very difficult to understand what your reasoning is. As it stands this is more disruptive than productive. Chillum 04:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, as mentioned above you attempted to mark this as historical without very much explanation. If you want this to happen you need to convince us. If not then no further action is needed. Chillum 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This is essentially what I wrote:
- Ste vertigo 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that argument justifies marking this page as historical. This page describes a common practice that serves us well. Those people who said "Wikipedia has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding in becoming an encyclopedia, or else to rise to the level of being reliable" where likely not using this page as justification for saying so. I don't think it has been promoting violation of those policies, if someone is violating those policies then that is their doing not this page's. Chillum 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I originally started to write the following:
Then the coin dropped, and I realized that the statement ment the opposite: ``If the chance of success is neglible then it is legitimate to consider failure a foregone conclusion and skip the process.
I recommend that the claim be tweaked to avoid this ambiguity. Those who know the policy will understand it already; those who do not and are low on their coffeine may fail, just like I did. 88.77.145.6 ( talk) 23:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the following items from "See also":
They seem for the most part to be expressions of minority dissent from our very firmly established policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and as such are useless and will only mislead newcomers--which I assume was not their intention. -- TS 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I tried to listen the the sound file that reads the page to you, but I couldn't hear a word. I turned my computer's volume up to full, then adjusted the volume option on the page (next to the play button and progress bar). It was a faint whisper. Has anyone else had this problem? I've just gone to YouTube to check, and it nearly blew my speakers. So I don't think it's a problem with my machine. — Fly by Night ( talk) 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Recently I was involved in a good-faith discussion about AfD policy. There were two possible interpretations and I am not sure which one (if either) should apply.
Consider the following made-up case; someone puts a tag on the BLP for the Pope with a comment "Non Notable leader of little-known religion." Clearly there us a snowball's chance in hell of the pope's page being deleted as non-notable.
INTERPRETATION A: There needs to a discussion before [[ WP:SNOWBALL]] can be invoked. We can quickly deal with the afD, but at least a little discussion is required. Not only does the box displayed by the tag say "this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed", but there is a comment that reads "<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->." Also, the user who deleted the tag should be warned with {{Uw-idt1}} or {{Uw-idt2}}. That's what the Uw-idt tag is for.
INTERPRETATION B: The first editor who sees an article for deletion / not notable tag on the pope's BLB should delete it on sight, ignoring the above "do not..." warnings, and invoke [[ WP:SNOWBALL]] in the comments. That's what [[ WP:SNOWBALL]] is for. If any editor disagrees and wants a discussion, he should revert the tag deletion and the deleter should then discuss rather than deleting the tag, but there is no need for a {{Uw-idt1}} user warning after a good-faith application of [[ WP:SNOWBALL]] in such a case.
So, gentlemen, which interpretation (or some third interpretation) is more correct? I personally can see good arguments for both interpretations. Guy Macon 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
An AFD nomination for The Pope would be a speedy keep, an all but obvious SK2. However, this was not a speedy keep and most likely not a WP:SNOW keep either. It needed to go the full 7 days.-- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that no example is suitable for my purpose, which is getting an answer to the policy question I keep asking. Thryduulf being a big exception, most of the comments seem to focus on the example, leaving the policy question unanswered. So let me try again with no example:
Assume for the sake of argument that someone in good faith nominates a Wikipedia page for deletion that has zero chance of being deleted. Seconds later, another editor sees the afD tag. As far as I can determine, the following is a complete list of his options for applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines at that point:
OPTION 1: Revert it on sight. This leaves the page as it was before the afD. It also requires disobeying the message box ("this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed") and the comment ("<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->") put there by the afD template.
OPTION 2: Close it on sight. This leaves the page with a "This page was nominated for deletion on [date] The result of the discussion was keep" box on the page despite there having been no such discussion.
OPTION 3: Do nothing. Leave it up for discussion, possibly for the entire 7 days, possibly with a speedy keep closing after some short period of discussion.
OPTION 4: The described situation is impossible. Nobody has ever in good faith nominated a Wikipedia page for deletion that has zero chance of being deleted, and nobody ever will. Either it has a chance of being deleted, or the nominator is a vandal, so either let it run its course or delete it as vandalism and warn the user.
Guy Macon 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I would like to add the paragraph below (or a similar one) to the "What SNOW is not" section, because I think this section doesn't appropriately discuss the risks of Snow decisions. However, I would like to hear other editor's comments first.
It can also be argued that there is a reason that the normal AfD process takes 5 days, which is to ensure that all interested users, including experts on the topic and editors of the article in question, get a chance to contribute. Especially when the notability of a subject is in question it can easily happen that an article seems to have a snowball's chance in hell but this consensus may be turned around in the late stages, when experts on the issue become aware of the AfD nomination.
Malc82 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can 6 votes in 24 hours be counted as a SB?
perfectblue 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A merger between the a page about the urban legend of the Iraqi Killer bager and the factual page about the real life creature the Ratel (honey badger). Somebody put up a merge template and declared snow after only 6 votes. It's worth noting that proceedings were closed within 24 hours of the first vote and without the parent project or the page's creator being informed (they were unable to oppose the merger owing to not knowing about it). - perfectblue 08:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I was rereading this, and I noticed it had a bold part for uphill battles-- I'd actually written an essay on it awhile back at WP:UPHILL. I would link the statement to my essay, but that would be a bit egotistical, even for myself, and this article and it are slightly different. My article is mainly about the action of actually trying to save a snowball, whereas the way it's used here is more about things that are nearly snowballs. I would put it in 'see also', but again, that's a bit much, even for my ego, so I'd like to get at least a couple other opinions on it -- L u c id 09:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel the picture of hell is confusing. The big dome-lookin in the middle thing could be mistake for a really really big snowball - which to me suggests that whoever added that picture was trying to insert a subversive message into the article; namely that only a really really big snowball has a chance in hell - in other words, in order to force through unpopular decisions, you have to be a really really big dick. Also, the dome looks really sci-fi-ish, so even if people don't mistake it for a really really snowball, they might think it's a picture of future hell, or space hell, or possibly even robot hell - and therefore doesn't apply to the present-day, Earth-bound, human-created Wikipedia. -- Gpollock 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/cf38 by WP:SNOW please. cf38 talk 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else feel that WP:SNOW is overused particularly in AfD debates? I use WP:SNOW, but I believe that it should only be used in contexts for which consensus really is glaringly obvious and there's no chance of the opposite thing eventually happening - in 'speedy keep' cases, or for things which would be impossible to have a sourced, valid article on yet don't quite meet the speedy deletion criteria. What's with people saying speedy delete in AfD now when none of the criteria apply, anyway?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against the idea behind the snowball clause, but closing an AfD debate "Delete per WP:SNOW" is basically telling the author that their article didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing AfD. Is it me, or does that seem a bit inflammatory (no pun intended)? I think that we should change it to something along the lines of "the landslide clause", which is much more civil. Thoughts? J-ſtan Contribs User page 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to snowball delete? I don't believe so. If you have {keep, keep, speedy keep, keep} you can speedy keep, but not the other way around. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 13:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just wanted to say that i thought that when i went to a link saying that i should look at this page it was going to be another boring ass handbook written page in which i wouldn't even read execpt the first paragraph but when i read this and how they talk aboout snowballs and hell and even verify it with a picture i could barly stop laughing so to who ever did that i say thank you are awsome and that i Seth dalorane admin canidate approves of this page Seth dalorane ( talk) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to have a non-standard header. The <essay> tag auto-includes the page in Cat:WPessays. In that case, a link to WP:IAR in the see also section is fine. -- Newbyguesses ( talk) 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Why encourage the idea that a page's official "status" is the way to think about it? I'd love to see those tags all thrown out as so much policy creep, but I realize that some of them are necessary. Tagging policy as policy: fine. Tagging an essay you've written as an essay, so people don't get the wrong idea: cool. Implying that those tags matter by arguing about them: not so cool. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to get you guys too nervous, but right now, we're standing in an old dusty wikidrama-zone (see archives), have popped off the safety-tag that cooled it down last time, and have re-lit an old fuse we found lying around (see archives some more) , and are... just standing around? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Once the fuse is lit, Mr. Dynamite is not your friend.
Quoting the article:
It is hard to see how a test that can only be applied retroactively can prevent anything. Wanderer57 ( talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
For an essay, it is not necessary for an essay to agree with existing polic--ine3ed, essays can be a step in changing policy. ., However, when it gives advice that is directly contrary to policy, such as suggesting that speedy can be used in cases which it does not provide for, it had better say that it is contrary to the policy. DGG ( talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose adding language to the effect of strongly suggesting that the snowball clause not be invoked until at least 24 hours have passed, to give editors from all time zones equal opportunity to voice opinions. Any objections or suggestions on how to phrase it? — Quasirandom ( talk) 17:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Article says:
And I'm ROTFLing! ;-) ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 14:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've read this article quite a few times, but I still don't really know what it means. Can someone give a really simple explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezzamon ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i propose adding a new paragraph to that section.
Also, the Snowball clause should not be seen as an excuse to violate WP:CONSENSUS. Per WP:NOTVOTE, if 1,000 people vote to keep and the only person presenting an argument based on Wikipedia polices advocates deletion per those policies, the article will be deleted, regardless of the number of votes to the contrary. Misterdiscreet ( talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel compelled to point out that (according to a popular theory) at least one of the circles of hell is a vast frozen sheet of ice, where a snowball would actually do quite well. Doesn't NPOV insist that we represent the notable minority position that the chances of a snowball in hell (under some conditions) are darn near 100%? -- Ludwigs2 22:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Philman132 ( talk) 13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead a bit, for style, and to make reference to what I think are the appropriate essays and guidelines (this is not related to wp:IAR, but is much closer to wp:POINT and wp:NOTABUREAUCRACY). comments? -- Ludwigs2 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The reference to WP:CIVIL was removed. I restored it as I find civility does play a big part in WP:SNOW. Comments? Yintaɳ 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
“ | If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a desired outcome, don't keep pushing for it anyway. | ” |
I remember that the snowball clause once said something along the lines that if following a particular bureaucratic procedure will result in an inevitable outcome with a "snowball's chance in hell" of a different outcome, then there is no point in going through the procedure. Now it's changed to something entirely different. This clause has gone from an anti- WP:BUREAUCRACY position to practically endorsing it. -- Farix ( Talk) 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that Stevertigo has attempted to mark this as historical, I reverted because I disagree and see no consensus to do so. We are not a bureaucracy and this is not a guideline or policy so I see no reason to scrap this. If someone is annoyed with how this essay is used then they should bring the problem to the person they think is misusing it or to this talk page. They should not unilateral attempt decide something is historical. The historical tag should reflect the current status of the essay not dictate it and I see the ideas in this essay being practiced daily. Discussion welcome.
The snow ball clause allows us to avoid going through the motions of a bureaucracy when we all know what the result will be. That is all that is needed in defense of this page. If people mis-use it then the problem is with those people not this page. Chillum 04:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Steve please propose your reasons here in a reasonable fashion so that we may give your point of view proper consideration. The lack of information you have provided makes it very difficult to understand what your reasoning is. As it stands this is more disruptive than productive. Chillum 04:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, as mentioned above you attempted to mark this as historical without very much explanation. If you want this to happen you need to convince us. If not then no further action is needed. Chillum 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This is essentially what I wrote:
- Ste vertigo 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that argument justifies marking this page as historical. This page describes a common practice that serves us well. Those people who said "Wikipedia has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding in becoming an encyclopedia, or else to rise to the level of being reliable" where likely not using this page as justification for saying so. I don't think it has been promoting violation of those policies, if someone is violating those policies then that is their doing not this page's. Chillum 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I originally started to write the following:
Then the coin dropped, and I realized that the statement ment the opposite: ``If the chance of success is neglible then it is legitimate to consider failure a foregone conclusion and skip the process.
I recommend that the claim be tweaked to avoid this ambiguity. Those who know the policy will understand it already; those who do not and are low on their coffeine may fail, just like I did. 88.77.145.6 ( talk) 23:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the following items from "See also":
They seem for the most part to be expressions of minority dissent from our very firmly established policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and as such are useless and will only mislead newcomers--which I assume was not their intention. -- TS 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I tried to listen the the sound file that reads the page to you, but I couldn't hear a word. I turned my computer's volume up to full, then adjusted the volume option on the page (next to the play button and progress bar). It was a faint whisper. Has anyone else had this problem? I've just gone to YouTube to check, and it nearly blew my speakers. So I don't think it's a problem with my machine. — Fly by Night ( talk) 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Recently I was involved in a good-faith discussion about AfD policy. There were two possible interpretations and I am not sure which one (if either) should apply.
Consider the following made-up case; someone puts a tag on the BLP for the Pope with a comment "Non Notable leader of little-known religion." Clearly there us a snowball's chance in hell of the pope's page being deleted as non-notable.
INTERPRETATION A: There needs to a discussion before [[ WP:SNOWBALL]] can be invoked. We can quickly deal with the afD, but at least a little discussion is required. Not only does the box displayed by the tag say "this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed", but there is a comment that reads "<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->." Also, the user who deleted the tag should be warned with {{Uw-idt1}} or {{Uw-idt2}}. That's what the Uw-idt tag is for.
INTERPRETATION B: The first editor who sees an article for deletion / not notable tag on the pope's BLB should delete it on sight, ignoring the above "do not..." warnings, and invoke [[ WP:SNOWBALL]] in the comments. That's what [[ WP:SNOWBALL]] is for. If any editor disagrees and wants a discussion, he should revert the tag deletion and the deleter should then discuss rather than deleting the tag, but there is no need for a {{Uw-idt1}} user warning after a good-faith application of [[ WP:SNOWBALL]] in such a case.
So, gentlemen, which interpretation (or some third interpretation) is more correct? I personally can see good arguments for both interpretations. Guy Macon 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
An AFD nomination for The Pope would be a speedy keep, an all but obvious SK2. However, this was not a speedy keep and most likely not a WP:SNOW keep either. It needed to go the full 7 days.-- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that no example is suitable for my purpose, which is getting an answer to the policy question I keep asking. Thryduulf being a big exception, most of the comments seem to focus on the example, leaving the policy question unanswered. So let me try again with no example:
Assume for the sake of argument that someone in good faith nominates a Wikipedia page for deletion that has zero chance of being deleted. Seconds later, another editor sees the afD tag. As far as I can determine, the following is a complete list of his options for applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines at that point:
OPTION 1: Revert it on sight. This leaves the page as it was before the afD. It also requires disobeying the message box ("this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed") and the comment ("<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->") put there by the afD template.
OPTION 2: Close it on sight. This leaves the page with a "This page was nominated for deletion on [date] The result of the discussion was keep" box on the page despite there having been no such discussion.
OPTION 3: Do nothing. Leave it up for discussion, possibly for the entire 7 days, possibly with a speedy keep closing after some short period of discussion.
OPTION 4: The described situation is impossible. Nobody has ever in good faith nominated a Wikipedia page for deletion that has zero chance of being deleted, and nobody ever will. Either it has a chance of being deleted, or the nominator is a vandal, so either let it run its course or delete it as vandalism and warn the user.
Guy Macon 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)