SNOW is used as an interpretation on Wikipedia, and is something that I believe should always be followed. Here is an example.

1. If an article is speedily deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it.

What this basically means is if something is going to happen, don't extend the process longer than it needs to be extended.

On wikipedia it is descirbed as

If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.

Of course, this does not mean that you cannot fight an uphill battle, becuase that is potentially winnable. In the Wikibooks 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 requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness.

Last modified on 3 July 2008, at 22:38