Deletion of Sandbox Effect (2nd nomination)

Comment: The criteria for "legit"imacy is explained at .  If something is valid, add it to the article, don't just ask here, unless its controversial
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Article information |that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Reasons for deletion include, ''but are not limited to'' emphasis added
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

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 phenomenon|internet phenomena is disputed, but that does not throw All your base are belong to us|everything out
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV)

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 .  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: yes that newspaper would meet |criteria, I would add it ''to my list'' added at  (after subsequent posts) except that refactoring is discouraged... I don't set requirements, the community does at .  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: I feel that this article has major  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:PSTS||WP:PSTS||WP:RS||WP:BB)

Comment: I was under the understanding that  and  aren't #REASON|reasons for deletion.  Is there some other policy that says otherwise? Special:Contributions/149.159.142.23|149.159.142.23
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:DEL)