- ProtonMail (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The snowball clause was not applied correctly here. The section "A cautionary note" reads:
The snowball clause may not always be appropriate 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 not votes; 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. — Wikipedians, A cautionary note, Wikipedia:Snowball clause
I do not think the snowball clause applied here. The vast majority of comments were votes and did not make arguments of their own. A quick closing did not allow for other points to be raised. Since the snowball test says "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause," I'm going to raise an objection to A.WagnerC's point with a source review table. (Note: Infosecurity Magazine's server is down. I can't find anything about them online sans their own company profiles.
Source assessment table:
|
| Source
|
Independent?
|
Reliable?
|
Significant coverage?
|
Count source toward GNG?
|
| Registrar No.1
|
 No information about ties to Protonmail, so assuming yes.
|
From a seemingly reliable publication.
|
 Incredibly short article about a DDOS attack on the software, not the actual software or company itself. Trivial.
|
✘ No
|
| Registrar No.2
|
See above.
|
Article makes some point of view comments in the subtitle.
|
Yet again a short article. It gives a basic overview of the service and some information about its new product line. Is also mostly just restatements of company policy and statements.
|
✘ No
|
| Reuters
|
Respected, independent news source.
|
Respected, independent news source.
|
Mostly about Russian internet restrictions. The only thing about the service itself was a half-sentence summary at the start of the article.
|
✘ No
|
| Vice
|
Respected, independent news source.
|
Respected, independent news source.
|
~ Semi-short article that is partially devoted to a product launch, but actually discusses the company and its userbase.
|
~ Partial
|
| Bit Tech
|
~ Heavily relies on the service's information. Not sure of Bit Tech's reliability.
|
? Not sure of Bit Tech's reliability. It seems to be from one of their news writers?
|
One paragraph discussing the company. It's mostly about Paypal freezing their account.
|
✘ No
|
| Gizmodo
|
Independent, respected newspaper.
|
Independent, respected newspaper.
|
Two paragraphs not about a new UI update, which is specifically listed as an example of trivial coverage.
|
✘ No
|
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
| Ardenter (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ardenter did not follow deletion review process correctly since they did not ask me to reevaluate the close. Other than Ardenter, there was unanimous agreement that this topic meets WP:N, so a snow close was indeed appropriate. There's a ton of reliable sources easily found with a Google News search discussing the company/product. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A snow close is meant to be for when there is no reasonable argument against the result or the consensus is unanimous. However, most of the comments in the deletion discussion were votes or pointing to a policy, not reasons for keeping. I only remember three that weren't votes, so I don't see SNOW as applicable here. Besides that a lot of those are from unreliable sources or are insignificant, this discussion is not about whether to close the article. I gave a source amendment table for the snowball test. Ardenter (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse there was clearly no chance of this closing any other way. Re-opening would be a violation of WP:NOTBURO - and hey, that's the point of WP:SNOW. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the SNOW close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the SNOW close, and might I suggest that the 7th consecutive editor to come to the same conclusion just SNOW close this DRV instead of piling on? 11-0 after 3 days is textbook SNOW, textbook NAC, and DRV'ing it borders on WP:DEADHORSE. Jclemens (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse 3 more to go? Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of snow-closing a discussion that's more than halfway through the usual 7-day period, but the outcome wasn't just "likely" or whatnot, it was inevitable, and the consensus was indeed unanimous (with above-average participation to boot) which means the WP:SNOW closure was reasonable and some would even say appropriate. You can restart the AfD in six months if you believe you have a good case. Relisting it right now would be absolutely pointless: the snowball has simply gotten too large – exercise common sense and get out of its way. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the snow close. The consensus was not reached based on these sources alone. during the period in which the discussion remained open, no one presented arguments for deletion. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also disagree with the conclusions in the table, as they are not trivial coverages. GIZMODO: 2 paragraphs dedicated to the new feature is rather significant coverage. there is no minimum number of paragraphs to state whether or not coverage is significant. THE REGISTER: is an event involving protomail. so it's not just significant coverage about Russia. VICE: the article is also about protomail. Finally, worth invoked WP:HEY. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, and the point to this appeal is what??? Does the appellant really think that if the AFD were reopened, there is a non-trivial likelihood that other editors would show up to argue Delete? Can we provide the appellant with an irradiated salmonid? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per all above. This is a textbook case for a SNOW close; relisting would be unhelpful and bureaucratic. I'm particularly skeptical of the petitioner's assertion that "the snowball clause was not applied correctly": a SNOW closure is by definition an invocation of WP:IAR, and the idea that ignoring the rules broke the rules about ignoring the rules strikes me as improbable, to say the least. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There is no reasonable prospect that this article would be deleted no matter how long the AfD ran, and no good argument that it should be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I could imagine a good nomination statement might have worked here. Walking through what seem to be the best sources and explaining why they weren't good. But that didn't happen and no good reasons for deletion followed in any discussion or !vote. And it's not like it was closed in 12 hours. Endorse. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
