Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Thomas Matthew Crooks

WP:SNOW
@Ganesha811: I understand the consensus for my request has resulted in keep (and I don't intend on restarting the discussion for the article's deletion), but why does your closing statement contain "WP:SNOW" ? I thought my request was quite reasonable and did not obviously have "snowball's chance in hell" of being deleted. ― Howard • 🌽33 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW is a shorthand for taking decisive action to avoid "long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions". I felt, reading over the discussion, that consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keep, and backed by policy-based arguments. From my point of view, we could spend a full week arguing over the AfD, which would then be closed as keep, or I could close it as keep immediately, reflecting the consensus and saving a lot of editors a lot of time. I did not see any scenario in which this AfD was closed as anything other than keep given the !votes of editors so far, our policies, and the simple fact that over the next 7 days, *more* information is likely to come to light about Crooks, and *more* reliable journalistic profiles are going to be written about him. This is not a case of WP:IAR, but it is a case of WP:NOT a bureaucracy. We are not a bureaucracy, and my close was intended to reflect the discussion's overwhelming consensus and save us all some time and thousands of words of argument. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ah ok then ― Howard • 🌽33 17:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)