Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandbox Effect


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox Effect

 * Delete - speculative, vague, not backed up by any evidence. Have yet to see a precise and unambiguous test for detecting if a page is "in the sandbox" or not. How do you distinguish the "sandbox effect" from pages that are simply poorly optimised for search engines?. Without such tests, the debate will always tend to be highly speculative. Howard Wright 12 May 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.235.44 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 May 2006
 * Inserting your vote at the top of the page, and voting anonymously (i.e. without logging in) are both bad form --Beachy 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Article seems to be A) original research/pure speculation (depending on one's point of view) and b) questionably encyclopedic. RobLinwood 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
 * Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 08:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is validly something known as the Google Sandbox Effect. Check the external links on the page. -- Andy123  (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if it is real, I am not convinced that it is notable. This is the current implementation of one web search engine's algorithms, after all.  I would say that wikipedia is not a webmaster resource, is not an SEO resource, either. cheers, RobLinwood 01:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree -- The sandbox effect is very notable for webmasters everywhere. Being in the Google Sandbox cripples a site's performance, and the web is big business. Don't underestimate the importance of this effect --Beachy 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Check out the external links on the page. Is a notable web phenomenon. --Knucmo2 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have personally seen the effects of this phenomenon and am keen to share knowledge about it. --Beachy 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Weak Keep. Those external links barely meet WP:V, however; if this is notable, someone should find a better source. -- FRCP11 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should be tagged to cite sources, not for deletion. Aguerriero  ( ţ ) ( ć ) ( ë ) 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - speculative, rewording of other's speculation, neologism of extremely limited acceptance. Real issue unnotable neologism.--Nick Y. 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as speculative unverifiable original research. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it and improve it or move it to another site (where?), but don't delete it please: it is extremely helpful. The sandbox effect is a reality, and yes we don't know everything about it (at least I don't). My website just got "out of the sandbox" today after nearly 6 months, (see that thread where I was trying to understand what was going on). --Martin 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.