Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tested.com

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 keep. given work done on the article after nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tested.com

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created from a redirect, this article is by its own admission under the wrong title (it should be Adam Savage's Tested) but in any case refers to a website and business that fail WP:GNG - sourcing is mostly to reviews on the channel itself and anything beyond that is very thin soup indeed - and routine coverage at that. No indepth independent coverage at all. Also fails WP:WEB. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The title is a different discussion, since Tested.com is still used quite a bit in some of the sources I found, but definitely worth considering a title change if this doesn't get deleted. I did some searching and improvements just now to the article, here are the best sources I could currently find: Adam Savage on his live science show, cosplay, and ‘promoting the joy in making things’ WHAT’S IN YOUR BAG, ADAM SAVAGE? YouTube Millionaires: Tested’s “Huge Nerds” Build Gadgets, Audience Mythbuster Adam Savage Brings Evening Of Journeys, Virtual Reality To Castro Theatre. It seems that these sources back up the notability of the site/YouTube channel, though I will continue to search for more to try to strengthen my argument a bit. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already in page. Not entirely sure why someone would nominate this, seems like a no hoper. Artw (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on whether current and mentioned sourcing satisfies notability criteria would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. it seems the main problem here is with 12 of the 27 references being from Tested (Adam Savage's Tested) to describe Tested's early history. (see paragraph 2 of History, ending at "...and 3D imagery and functionality.") this is something that a few sources should have described, in a paragraph or shorter text. since the sources are not independent of the subject, it may present itself as promotional or not notable. although i don't believe this is the case, as references from notable and independent sources like engadget, the verge, and variety are also present; however they almost act as passing mentions of Adam Savage's Tested with the way the references are presented in the article. if these same (or other) notable and independent sources could describe the core of what Adam Savage's Tested is, was, and/or will be, it would be subject for a wikipedia article. as it stands, the article does not warrant a separate wikipedia page.
.huepow^talk 23:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.huepow, I did a bit of work on the article, removing those sources, as well as adding some description from the existing stronger sources. I also added some of the Webby Awards Tested has won, which help with the second criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
looks good, Cerebral726. pretty sure this would be a keep now.
.huepow^talk 21:09, 5 July 2022 (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.