Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen 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 was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Unfortunately All Issues Resolved is not the case, and sourcing is not BLP compliant. If someone wants this to actively work on in draft space, I'm happy to provide it. Star  Mississippi  02:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Chosen Effect

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:PROD contested following deletion. Conducting a brief WP:BEFORE, I agree with the PROD of User:Tamzin, who wrote Largely promotional/COI and minimally sourced. Only 1 backlink, itself unsourced. Having trouble finding coverage even in non-RS, let alone RS. Except, now there are no backlinks. Article's creator has a likely COI and I see no RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This article has been around for 15 years and Chosen Effect even longer. Looks like some backlinks and information may have disappeared over time. I will do some work to see if I can research some backlinks and help edit the article. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The length of time the article has existed is irrelevant. It has been tagged for citations and WP:ADVERT concerns for over eight years, which is more relevant. Best of luck improving this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like some have made edits but no one has taken the time to improve and fix advert concerns so might as well be me. Thanks for the best of luck well wishes. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All issues resolved. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

'''All Issues Resolved. ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiterateFactChecker (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the nominator. Provided sources are not acceptable or enough and are press releases, youtube, etc.Samanthany (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts, but I still think it's promotional and it lacks sources to reliable publications. It's also still an orphan because no articles link to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will continue to improve and resolve issues. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2022 (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.