Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Musk

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 redirect to Musk family. This appears to be the rough consensus to solve to the competing issues around notability. History is there if anything that isn't already present is worth including. Star Mississippi 02:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Musk

[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)

Appears to violate WP:NOTINHERETED as there is no significant coverage that is not directly in the context of his relationship to Elon Musk. I would suggest a merge, but there isn't any non-trivial content that's not already included at Elon Musk. ––FormalDude talk 16:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. ––FormalDude talk 16:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article. It is about a notable subject who has appeared in the news and in books over a period of years and about whom there is plenty independent and significant coverage in reliable sources. The nominator has mentioned the very relevant essay WP:NOTINHERITED which I quote: Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. which seems clearly to mean that nothing or nobody should have an article, just because of their relationship with someone, sources are needed. Of course, I agree. And the most important part of that esay, in my opinion is this: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG..

So. for for example, Prince Charles is only famous because his mother was Queen Elizabeth. Does it mean he should have no article? Princess Diana was only notable because she married Charles. Should we delete her article too? No. Of course, not, because despite them only being notable based on marriage and birth, they meet WP:GNG in their own right. That is what this essay calls for, just the normal thing, meeting WP:GNG. So, does Errol Musk meet WP:GNG? Are there multiple, independent, reliable sources that have significant coverage? Yes. There are cited in the article. But for the avoidance of doubt, here are some:

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3181794/meet-elon-musks-controversial-father-errol-tesla-ceo (about the subject)
https://buffalonews.com/business/local/exploring-the-otherworldly-ambitions-of-elon-musk/article_2fc57479-93eb-5016-b724-016b48a4f4f3.html (significant coverage, being 8 mentiones)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-errol-musk-children-stepdaughter-b2123744.html (about the subject)
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a40621623/errol-musk-fathered-child-with-stepdaughter/ (about the subject)
https://web.archive.org/web/20150703011435/https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/07/02/how-to-raise-a-billionaire-an-interview-with-elon-musks-father-errol-musk/ (about the subject, an interview, so in my opinion good for notability, less good for verifiability)
There is also significant coverage in various books over the years, I can't hyperlink to them, but a search in google books shows them.

In summary, the essay above just calls for meeting WP:GNG. I had some concerns about this article in the context of criminal allegations about the subject and you'll see conversation with @Kj cheetham and another editor on the talk page, who I pinged for a second opinion. But I have no doubts that he meets WP:GNG and I think the nominator is mistaken in their understanding of WP:NOTINHERETED. From a technical points of view, WP:NOTINHERETED is an essay, an opinion piece (and a very agreeable one) but WP:GNG is an actual guideline, and outranks it anyway. Meeting WP:GNG is the gold standard for notability and I think the article is aligned with both essay and guideline. CT55555 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gets news coverage on his own so passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy, including concerns over the tabloid-style, sensationalized sources and nonindependent content supporting this article, e.g. Meet Elon Musk’s controversial father, Errol: the Tesla CEO called his South African dad ‘evil’ and denied rumours of family wealth fuelled by an emerald mine – but are they ready to reconcile? (SCMP, 2022); Exploring the otherworldly ambitions of Elon Musk (Buffalo News, 2014, "said Errol Musk, Elon’s 68-year-old father, in a rare interview"; this article is focused on Elon, biographical information about Errol is brief and Elon-focused), Elon Musk’s father reveals he has had a second child with his own stepdaughter - report (The Independent, 2022, churnalism from the non-RS tabloid The Sun; The Cosmopolitan article linked above is the same); How To Raise A Billionaire: An Interview With Elon Musk's Father, Errol Musk (Forbes, 2014, an interview about Elon); book sources also appear to be focused on Elon and insufficient to support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability for Errol based on the limited content about his career in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. (emphasis added). WP:BLP policy includes Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources [...] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Beccaynr (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not include any "claims". Everything is cited in reliable sources and the recent news is very well documented in news media from all around the world. CT55555 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be a lot of 'claims' in the sensationalist reports - the churnalism from The Telegraph is another example, in addition to sources that explictly state they rely on the deprecated non-RS The Sun (i.e. The Independent, Cosmopolitan). The recent news is tabloid and tabloid-style sensationalism, churned in multiple outlets. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the specific piece of information being volunteered by him in an interview, and that being reported by a lot of sources (just search for his name at Google News), I think it's strange to think of this as a "claim". I also think we cannot just assume that the first news source to report something is the only one who fact-checked it. I might feel less confident if this wealthy individual has disputed it or if there was some content being disputed by anyone, anywhere. CT55555 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the article content is focused on a scandal related to him and low-profile living people, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL, which is what I attempted to link to above in the first WP:NOT policy link. The recent sources are also filled with claims about various people based on interviews with other people, which makes Wikipedia a primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. SCMP even uses the term 'rumours' in its headline. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSCANDAL is policy and steers us away from gossip. I quote Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. That policy is entirly about accuracy, not about judgement. Everything is cited and verifiable. How we individually perceive contents to reflect on him, our point of view, must be set side. CT55555 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "or" helps interpret the policy as beyond the gossip and rumors in the sources and includes the scandal described in the article, despite the subject admitting to it. Per WP:V, specifically WP:ONUS, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and this is a scandalous, trivial detail about his personal life, that is disproportionately prominent in the article. With this content removed, there does not appear to be much beyond his relationship with his notable son to support his own notability, which appears to be within the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline and supports deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The weight of the detail, in my opinion, is equivalent to the news it got. What is or is not a "scandal" is a point of view and we should avoid that. I sense we are not going to persuade each other. That's OK.

I think every point we're disagreeing on leads me back to the simple fact of the subject being being notable as per WP:GNG so I'll try to make that my last reply to you here. CT55555 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources seem to support referring to this disproportionately-covered detail of his personal life as a 'scandal' because it is tabloid fodder, and other news outlets are churning the tabloid content in a sensationalized manner, and an otherwise generally reliable source such as SCMP refers to him as "controversial" while also printing 'rumours' and what Elon says about him. WP:GNG is not enough to support WP:N, which is why I added the additional comment after my first comment. There appear to be significant source-supported, policy-backed concerns with this article that support deletion, and nothing specifically identified beyond the sensationalized coverage to support notability independent from his son. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To briefly respond to these points:
- WP:INVALIDBIO really says the same as WP:NOTINHERITED - people related to others need sources in the same way. I quote That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A) The part in brackets is key. I hope I addressed that above.
- Regarding WP:NOT the only part that I think could conceivably apply here is the bit about being PROMO or publishing thoughts, I think this article does neither. But I welcome any edits if flaws are identified.
- WP:BLP I think this is BLP compliant.
- Both WP:SCMP and The Independent are highlighted green WP:RSPSS as reliable sources. The Cosmopolitan is yellow, it requires a case-by-case analysis. There is also reporting from other reliable sources such as The Telegraph. I've used no depreciated sources. The Independent and The Sun are owned by different corporations, I see no reason to assume The Independent is unable to do it's own reporting or fact checking, it's an established journalistic organization.
- That some books are more about his son doesn't means they don't contain significant coverage of him. Quoting WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. CT55555 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we have enough sourcing that is actually about him, as opposed to just incidental mentions in relation to his son, to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Considering WP:ATD and notwithstanding my keep vote, which I standby, a redirect to Musk family seems like the most dramatic outcome that anyone should be considering. CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having received news articles/separate coverage about himself, I believe passes notability guidelines. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit on the fence with this one, but if the outcome is delete, there should still be a redirect for this name put in place. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Having thought about this a bit longer, redirect is the best way forward. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk family. Notability is WP:INHERITED and the individual can be adequately covered as a section within the family's article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the WP:NOT policy concerns outlined above, I oppose a redirect without first deleting this article. There appears to be sufficient reason to delete the article history due to the tabloid-style, sensationalist sources, and also the poorly-sourced WP:BLPCRIME content [1] that previously appeared in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The crime thing (which I deleted before moving from draft, to be cautious) is a quote that appears widely online in reliable sources, so I think needs to not be included as per the guideline, but it's not the sort of thing that warranted hiding previous version. But if you disagree, that can be done now and doesn't require deleting a whole article or it's entire history. CT55555 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk family. Not much coverage as of now for notability, but i think the eventuality would be to redirect it. MrHerii (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk family. He is not independently notable enough to meet the GNG and NOT tests (particularly NOTGOSSIP). Even if one were to consider that he did meet those conditions, there is in any case not enough independently notable information about him to pass WP:PAGEDECIDE. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks to edits by User:La_lopi his career section is now expanded and includes his election in 1972 to Pretoria City Council. I hope this alleviates the concerns that people raised about over reliance on tabloid or sensationalist only content, and I think it must further remove any WP:BLP1E concerns. CT55555 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of a minor detail from Elon Musk Left a South Africa That Was Rife With Misinformation and White Privilege (New York Times, May 2022, includes quotes and information from Errol Musk) does not seem to help avoid reasons to delete this article and then create a redirect. The sensationalist and tabloid sources do not support his notability, and there does not appear to be sufficient independent and reliable support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability to support this article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deplorable person passes GNG sadly.★Trekker (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect seems the rational course. I don't see anything here that states is notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk family. This appears to be a WP:NOTINHERETED situation. Bruxton (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since it's been nominated for deletion, this page has been viewed approximately 10,000 times per day. It has grown by about 30% in length due to edits from 8 editors who have added career and family information, and it is now a C class article. News about the subject have appeared I think multiple times every day with outlets in Europe, Asia, and the Americas all discussing his rather dislikable behaviour. So while he is a rather dislikable man, about 60,000 wikipedia users have learned about him since the 17th of this month. CT55555 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The class doesn't really matter for this discussion (though it's barely C class in my opinion), neither does the number of hits I don't think. It all comes down to the sourcing. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk averages 70k+ per day. I wish I could see that Errol Musk was notable. I see an unremarkable person and I struggle to see anything notable bout him. Bruxton (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that that the intent of the rating system was for it to be conducted by an independent editor, not by the page's creator and main contributor. Certainly self-rating can't be used as justification for keeping the page. I applaud your efforts to find reliably sourced facts, but they don't change the truth that the only notable thing about the subject is his family. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rating given by me was that suggested by the automatic rater tool, which was recommended to me, I think by @Kj cheetham. I think the rating is non controversial. I think it's normal for reasonably experienced editors to rate articles as per suggested ratings. If anyone thinks the C rating is incorrect, of course, they can change it. CT55555 (talk) 21:10, 24 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.