Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Snowball


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

The result was no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Operation Snowball

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non notable organization. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: The previous relist was never transcluded to the log: see closure request. This should be considered the first relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations,  and Illinois.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I found this, this, and this, which I think are at least marginally notable enough that there's a case for the article to continue. Having said that, if it does continue to live on, it needs to be massively cleaned up. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. There are some ghits, like above, but they are mere mentions or interviews of the leaders or participants of the organisations activity, which is not sufficiently independent.  No independent person can be found to be making qualities commentary on this organisation.  It’s close, but definitely fails.  All draftification should someone find better sources.  Also note that the current version looks too much like the archive of the organisation website. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2024 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.