301:; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. Cases like this are more about judgment than rules, however.
136:
278:
28:
117:
209:
is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the
Knowledge community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often
304:
The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time, but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous.
263:
If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to
196:
The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks. The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time.
180:
The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions. For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (the reason was not within the
247:
Sometimes the support for a proposal is so overwhelming or so obvious that it has a snowball's chance in hell of failing. Such proposals may also be suitable for SNOW closure, with the same care and considerations that apply to that of failing proposals.
210:
requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of fairness. However,
129:
of success, use common sense and don't follow the process all the way to the end, just for procedural sake. But if there are any doubts, do not terminate the process prematurely.
256:
This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, as the lack of snowballs in hell is not an absolute, and is thus useful for learning from experience.
445:
297:
if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are
211:
260:
If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.
17:
36:
40:
329:
182:
467:
350:
389:
53:
376:
186:
173:
52:
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of
340:
314:
57:
190:
200:
472:
324:
157:
44:
319:
414:
281:
Sometimes, the fate of the snowball may not be immediately obvious and predictable until it has
89:
345:
231:
176:
of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.
96:
82:
238:
8:
75:
356:
298:
223:
67:
334:
425:
265:
161:
193:
the article and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again.
165:
461:
441:
397:
272:
251:
135:
277:
402:
reported by
Schwegler et al., in Physical Review Letters, 13 March 2000
286:
429:
143:
16:"WP:SNOW" redirects here. For the snow sports WikiProject, see
363:
217:
139:
308:
285:
been placed in the infernal conditions. This calls for an
212:
process for its own sake is not part of
Knowledge policy
337:, an RFA-specific application of the snowball clause
156:is one way that editors are encouraged to exercise
353:(a satirical essay lampooning the snowball clause)
185:), but the article has no chance of surviving the
459:
396:. American Institute of Physics. Archived from
18:Knowledge:WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding
266:avoid disrupting Knowledge to make a point
276:
134:
41:Knowledge:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy
440:
460:
359:, antithetical Meta policy on Snowball
168:behavior. The snowball clause states:
447:A dictionary of proper names and ...
111:
22:
13:
58:thoroughly vetted by the community
54:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
484:
379:(Dilbert comic strip 2003-07-05)
115:
26:
201:What the snowball clause is not
142:. Note the complete absence of
434:
415:"Chance for snowballs in hell"
407:
382:
370:
1:
295:may not always be appropriate
468:Knowledge supplemental pages
330:Jamaican Bobsled Team clause
183:criteria for speedy deletion
7:
351:Steamroll minority opinions
189:, it would be pointless to
10:
489:
221:
65:
45:Knowledge:Ignore all rules
15:
174:snowball's chance in hell
127:snowball's chance in hell
289:to be conducted in full.
125:If a process only has a
123:This page in a nutshell:
187:normal deletion process
442:Toynbee, Paget Jackson
400:on 27 September 2012.
290:
178:
147:
424:, 182 (19 May 1994);
394:Physics News Graphics
280:
170:
138:
450:The Clarendon Press.
341:Process is important
293:The snowball clause
390:"Snowballs in Hell"
315:Closing discussions
56:as it has not been
291:
172:If an issue has a
148:
473:Knowledge culture
273:A cautionary note
252:The snowball test
133:
132:
109:Explanatory essay
107:
106:
37:explanatory essay
480:
452:
451:
438:
432:
430:10.1038/369182a0
413:David A. Paige,
411:
405:
404:
386:
380:
374:
325:Ignore all rules
241:
234:
119:
118:
112:
99:
92:
85:
78:
30:
29:
23:
488:
487:
483:
482:
481:
479:
478:
477:
458:
457:
456:
455:
439:
435:
412:
408:
388:
387:
383:
377:A Lucky Snowman
375:
371:
366:
320:Deletion policy
311:
275:
254:
245:
244:
237:
230:
226:
220:
203:
153:snowball clause
116:
110:
103:
102:
95:
88:
81:
74:
70:
62:
61:
27:
21:
12:
11:
5:
486:
476:
475:
470:
454:
453:
433:
406:
381:
368:
367:
365:
362:
361:
360:
354:
348:
343:
338:
332:
327:
322:
317:
310:
307:
274:
271:
270:
269:
261:
253:
250:
243:
242:
235:
227:
222:
219:
216:
202:
199:
131:
130:
120:
108:
105:
104:
101:
100:
93:
86:
79:
71:
66:
63:
51:
50:
33:
31:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
485:
474:
471:
469:
466:
465:
463:
449:
448:
443:
437:
431:
427:
423:
420:
416:
410:
403:
399:
395:
391:
385:
378:
373:
369:
358:
357:Meta:Snowball
355:
352:
349:
347:
344:
342:
339:
336:
333:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
312:
306:
302:
300:
296:
288:
284:
279:
267:
262:
259:
258:
257:
249:
240:
236:
233:
229:
228:
225:
215:
213:
208:
207:uphill battle
198:
194:
192:
188:
184:
177:
175:
169:
167:
163:
159:
155:
154:
145:
141:
137:
128:
124:
121:
114:
113:
98:
94:
91:
90:WP:SNOWCLAUSE
87:
84:
80:
77:
73:
72:
69:
64:
59:
55:
48:
46:
42:
38:
32:
25:
24:
19:
446:
436:
421:
418:
409:
401:
398:the original
393:
384:
372:
303:
294:
292:
282:
255:
246:
232:WP:AVALANCHE
206:
204:
195:
179:
171:
166:bureaucratic
158:common sense
152:
151:
149:
126:
122:
97:WP:SNOWCLOSE
34:
346:Speedy keep
83:WP:SNOWBALL
35:This is an
462:Categories
364:References
287:experiment
239:WP:SNOWPRO
160:and avoid
39:about the
299:not votes
224:Shortcuts
218:Avalanche
191:resurrect
144:snowballs
68:Shortcuts
444:(1898).
309:See also
283:actually
47:policies
335:Not now
76:WP:SNOW
419:Nature
162:pointy
150:The
140:Hell
43:and
426:doi
422:369
205:An
464::
417:,
392:.
214:.
164:,
49:.
428::
268:.
146:.
60:.
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
