Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandbox Effect (2nd nomination)

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 to delete, disagreement in discussion exists over whether the sources are sufficient and reliable enough for the article. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The previous AfD had many keep votes, but they seem to reduce to WP:IKNOWIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Some asked to clean it up and find sources. It has been over a year now, and it still is lacking in non-blog sources. For this reason, I feel that it violates WP:V and WP:RS, and that sources simply won't materialize. Thinboy00 @940, i.e. 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification of reason. I just realized that "is lacking in" could be interpreted as "has no". I actually mean that it does not have enough, and most are in response to blogs and do not serve to explain what the sandbox is, but merely to confirm that some people think it exists. --Thinboy00 @973, i.e. 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I was under the understanding that WP:V and WP:RS aren't reasons for deletion. Is there some other policy that says otherwise? 149.159.142.23 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to [emphasis added], ..." --Thinboy00 @201, i.e. 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if the effect doesn't exist, it could still be notable. Google appears to have denied it in a public forum, and some of the other sources on the page look reputable. They seem to be thoughtful reviews of the existence or not of the effect. A topic such as this will naturally be discussed online, by these kinds of writers. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AnteaterZot's argument amounts to it sounds interesting and is probably notable, even if it can not be verified by any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment(edit conflict) here is a list of all external links that don't have the word "blog" in their URLs or allow user contributed content ("third" means on the original list of all external links):
  • first one
  • third one
  • seventh one

all others either contain the word "blog" in URLs or allow user contribs. Comments were not counted as contribs. For example, if it had been there, slashdot would have failed because its users write the stories, not because it allows comments. The first one is a simple refutation of its existence which only proves that some people got upset and believe in its existence. The third and seventh ones are both instructive, though the third has an intro that might provide enough info for a stub. The seventh is purely instructive. The SEOmoz article is excluded because it currently leads to a 404 error[1]. --Thinboy00 @61, i.e. 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh, does the fact that Google put it on [2] this patent application help? AnteaterZot (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What phrase did they use to describe it? I couldn't find "sandbox" (Case insensitive) on the page. --Thinboy00 @153, i.e. 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't going to call it that. Anyway, does this source meet with your approval? I'm having a hard time looking through the 25,500 Yahoo hits for "google sandbox effect". AnteaterZot (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment yes that newspaper would meet criteria, I would add it to my list added at 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (after subsequent posts) except that refactoring is discouraged... I don't set requirements, the community does at WP:RS. If you can demonstrate where the effect is referenced (preferably with a quote) on the patent application, that would be nice, since its an awful lot of text to read. --Thinboy00 @166, i.e. 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this line in the patent is what is meant: "5. The system of claim 2, wherein the meta attribute comprises one of: an age attribute, a stature attribute, and an importance attribute." AnteaterZot (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• And is webpronews.com a legit site? They have this article on the topic. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria for "legit"imacy is explained at WP:RS. If something is valid, add it to the article, don't just ask here, unless its controversial. --Thinboy00 @168, i.e. 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I ask because this is not my field of expertise. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (outdent) Webpronews allows user contributions, so I would discount it as original/self-published per WP:RS
• Comment, important I feel that this article has major WP:V issues, and I feel that it should address the validity of these statements (that does not mean "they have to be true & provable", it means you should be able to prove one way or the other):

1. Google has a list (an actual file) of URLs that are "in the sandbox" and the observed effect is not merely because of age-based Systematic bias.
2. Other websites (Yahoo!, MSN, etc.) use dramatically different sorting algorithms/don't have sandboxes that produce dramatic discrepancies.

I feel that the article in its current state might be construed as slanderous to Google, as it asserts strange behaviors of google after google has denied them, and without sources to back up statement # 1 especially. We have no proof that google keeps a list of sandbox URLs, and google has denied it. That should be taken into consideration. If we could prove statement 1 false, the article would need a major rewrite to cast it as an urban legend. --Thinboy00 @193, i.e. 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's called the Sandbox "Effect", not the Sandbox "File". I think that most of the sources state that the effect does not exist, but the ~100,000 g-hits or y-hits for "google sandbox effect" means that it topic has traction. Articles that largely debunk rumors are allowable on Wikipedia. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote from article:"The Sandbox Effect is the theory that websites with newly-registered domains or domains with frequent ownership or nameserver changes are placed in a sandbox (holding area) in the indexes of Google until it is deemed appropriate before a ranking can commence." Emphasis added. --Thinboy00 @203, i.e. 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, I did not entirely understand your comment at first, probably because I stopped reading to comment (stupid of me really). We can't say for sure whether it exists, so it is inherently not verifiable, whether we want to debunk or prove it is beside the point until we have proof one way or the other. We might discuss it in a neutral way that makes no assumptions as to its existence, I see few problems there, except that the notability of internet phenomena is disputed, but that does not throw everything out. --Thinboy00 @214, i.e. 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Taos Hum is unverified, but there's an article. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The hum primarily cites secondary sources to prove that some people feel it, whereas this article primarily cites primary sources. The latter are discouraged (and here also). Of course, we have secondary sources according to you, but right now, the article is a mess. If it can be fixed, now is the time to do it; don't just say "we could ... and fix, so we should keep," but actually do it. --Thinboy00 @881, i.e. 20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The effect may or may not exist, but the article is about the fact that people think it exists or the theory that it exists. That people think it exists is verified by the first, third and seventh links as pointed out by Thinboy00, the original nom. Mdmkolbe (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is unfounded speculation, and the speculation as such is not notable. The article is a textbook violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is certainly notable and has received significant coverage online. Cleanup and sourcing might be appropriate, but the article shouldn't be deleted just because it needs improvement. Rray (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone added the webpronews article as a ref. Given concerns expressed here and on the talk page by myself, it would be nice if someone could tell me how it passes WP:SPS. If it has a moderation process that pre-screens all the stories (for example), that would be a valid reason for inclusion. If it doesn't have one (criteria for membership shouldn't qualify, as the users still self publish with no review), please substantiate it with a non-dead link. --Thinboy00 @917, i.e. 21:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe sources in general are the appropriate ones for this topic and sufficient to support notability DGG (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sourcing for this kind of ephermeral effect will be hard to come by, some sources on the page. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2007 (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.