Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause/Archive 3

message: :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)
replies: text: Speedy keeping Walrus was controversial? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Examples of controversial Snowballs

message: 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)
thread_title: Examples of NON-controversial Snowballs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why was the third picture added? 

message: While I understand that some AfD debates might attract undue attention from vandals/socks etc if left to fester, I can't help but wonder why we can't just let every AfD wait for the requisite number of days.  I only say this because I have seen a lot of users refer to WP:SNOW or some such thing as part of their reasoning in the debates, and to that extent I feel like this essay does more harm than good... I am certainly rehashing something that has already been hashed to death, but there you go.--Dmz5 08:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really the existence of this file that causes people to think that. This essay comes from a common phrase that would likely be quoted in it's place. Some issues don't have a snowball's chance in hell.. You could delete this page and people will still come to such conclusions. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough--Dmz5 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not just let it be? 

message: It sounds like the dispute tag and essay tag stuff are effects from a larger debate? Other than the edit summaries on the project page, there doesn't seem to be.. any elaboration on what the dispute is. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute