Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 11
The snowball clause was not applied correctly here. The section "A cautionary note" reads:
The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. Cases like this are more about judgment than rules, however.
— Wikipedians, A cautionary note, Wikipedia:Snowball clause
I do not think the snowball clause applied here. The vast majority of comments were votes and did not make arguments of their own. A quick closing did not allow for other points to be raised. Since the snowball test says "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause," I'm going to raise an objection to A.WagnerC's point with a source review table. (Note: Infosecurity Magazine's server is down. I can't find anything about them online sans their own company profiles.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Registrar No.1 |  No information about ties to Protonmail, so assuming yes.
|
From a seemingly reliable publication.
|
 Incredibly short article about a DDOS attack on the software, not the actual software or company itself. Trivial.
|
✘ No |
| Registrar No.2 | See above.
|
Article makes some point of view comments in the subtitle.
|
Yet again a short article. It gives a basic overview of the service and some information about its new product line. Is also mostly just restatements of company policy and statements.
|
✘ No |
| Reuters | Respected, independent news source.
|
Respected, independent news source.
|
Mostly about Russian internet restrictions. The only thing about the service itself was a half-sentence summary at the start of the article.
|
✘ No |
| Vice | Respected, independent news source.
|
Respected, independent news source.
|
~ Semi-short article that is partially devoted to a product launch, but actually discusses the company and its userbase. | ~ Partial |
| Bit Tech | ~ Heavily relies on the service's information. Not sure of Bit Tech's reliability. | ? Not sure of Bit Tech's reliability. It seems to be from one of their news writers? | One paragraph discussing the company. It's mostly about Paypal freezing their account.
|
✘ No |
| Gizmodo | Independent, respected newspaper.
|
Independent, respected newspaper.
|
Two paragraphs not about a new UI update, which is specifically listed as an example of trivial coverage.
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||