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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Snowball[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.