|This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia users. Essays may represent common ideas, or ideas that many users would not support. They are not rules. Think carefully about what they say before following them.
The "snowball act" works when users use their common sense to stop things which don't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. The snowball act says:
- If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, then there is no need to run it.
The snowball clause is not a rule, but it is designed to keep editors from using Wikipedia policies and guidelines to delay a decision by making a long debate.
What the snowball clause is not[change source]
Do not simply think that an issue will not pass just because things don't look good. It is best to settle the problem through discussion and debate, and use SNOW as a last resort.
The snowball test[change source]
- If something is run through some process and the final result is unanimous, then it might have been a good problem for the snowball act.
- If something is 'snowballed', and somebody later goes against the result with a good reason, then it might not have been a good problem for the snowball act. If it raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. However, if the objection raised is unreasonable, then the debate needs to be restarted, and editors should be careful to avoid stopping Wikipedia to make a point.