[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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
AfDs for this article:
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]

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]
  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]
  • 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandbox_Effect_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069633741"