Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk's submarine

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 merge to Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. Vanamonde (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's submarine[edit]

[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)

Uneeded for its own article, no use in the actual rescue as well as no recorded use. Device was deemed impractical by official as well. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 15:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. Not notable enough for its own article, could be part of another. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's emerging consensus both at Elon Musk and Tham Luang cave rescue that the amount of detail provided by all the available reliable sources has too much WP:WEIGHT for either article. A WP:SPLIT makes more sense in these conditions. Diego (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was originally thinking merge, but I believe it has more than enough coverage to satisfy the main branch of notability. Then it has plenty of content to warrant a CONTENTFORK. Coverage also extended on long enough to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED - Vox and Hackaday just to give a couple (there's plenty if you do a time-focused search). The sub was a sufficiently big part of the event, regardless of actual lack of usage, to achieve notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:WHENSPLIT. I started the article mainly with content that had been removed from Tham Luang cave rescue for being too detailed for that article, and because there were too many sources covering the development of this technological implement with a level of detail that was notable and in-depth, but not directly related to the rescue. There have been many articles dedicated both to the technological aspects of the device and its viability as submarine rescue equipment, as well as about the incident with its promoter and its angle as a publicity stunt, which could be used to further expand the topic with details gathered from independent secondary analysis. (Also, since when "it's not in use" has been a criterion for determining whether a topic is notable?) Diego (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the said submarine had no use and no foreseen need shows that the topic would not pass WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability".⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the length of time needed for sustained to apply is always one for dispute, I feel the coverage indicated (and available) is sufficient to show it was a brief news flurry. It doesn't have to be a long running coverage subject, just not brief. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When news media are dedicating feature-length analysis pieces one month after the incident, that is not a short burst. Diego (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an short opinion piece surrounding Musk's behavior, not necessarily the submarine. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 13:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty more mentioning the submarine where this one came from during the last week, you just need to look; this shows that its coverage in media was not just a brief burst never to be mentioned again, but that it has gained their sustained attention. Anyway, Musk's behavior regarding the submarine is part of the topic of this article. Diego (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of those articles barely mention the submarine. Also, in all of them, the submarine is not nearly the main focus. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 14:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Notability is about having enough independent content to write an article for a topic in a neutral way, and I believe this article is proof that press coverage satisfies that criterion. Diego (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; editorially, it's a useful article-split and it's unclear whether it will be the subject of lasting coverage at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per ~~Diego Moya~~Hypercube. It's fun to laugh at Musk, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, and the whole submarine incident seems more like one episode in the slow decline of a living figure rather than a notable object in and of itself. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already overwhelms the Elon Musk article as a section. This insignificant event has zero WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. wumbolo ^^^ 08:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is from yesterday. Diego (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Diego Moya: one sentence plus one quote? wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it appears that the sentence boils down to, "after this, I have a lower opinion of Musk," which points back to my previous argument that this is best viewed as an episode in the decline of Elon Musk rather than an independent article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's non-zero for you. And I count four paragraphs retelling the pod design, the "pedo" incident, and four sentences of opinions from Mr Acton (which is from one source, more than one month after the event; it doesn't mean there aren't others).
      Reading the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE policy above, I see it matching "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance" more closely than "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion". Diego (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, but there's also a WP:DUE issue at play here. The salacious nature of Musks's tweets shouldn't lead to us over-stating the significance of this event. The only significance of the submarine is that Elon Musk was the person who tried it. If it was some random nobody, it'd never have even made the news. Should we also have an article about Musk and Grimes' feud with Azealia Banks? Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:DUE is for placing content within an article dedicated to a different topic, no? Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and having an article or not depends on the WP:Notability of the (sub)topic itself, not its relation to other topics. WP:SPLIT recommends having a stand-alone article if there's enough references providing material that is too much weight for the article from which it came from. So WP:DUE would be a good argument for not merging it back into Elon Musk, not to delete Elon Musk's submarine. Diego (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, but that still doesn't speak to any independent notability. How is this object relevant to anything except that it was a Musk PR stunt? I mean it wasn't asked for by anyone, didn't rescue anyone. It's a non-notable object except in that it led to Musk saying unfortunate and slanderous things on Twitter about a person who actually did rescue people. Its notability is only because of Musk. It belongs merged into his article, not as a separate article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. The event is not independently notable of Musk and it does not satisfy WP:SUSTAINED. There is consensus at Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue#Survey that the submarine was a minor event compared to the entire rescue; devoting an entire article to it would be undue. A similar example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan, which was closed in favour of a merge. In this case, I suggest merging it to Elon Musk because the submarine and subsequent tweets attracted attention primarily because of Musk. This is a minor social media incident which got blown over and then coverage gradually decreases. Given our BLP policies which advise against devoting too much space to minor events, I think a couple of sentences in Elon Musk should be good enough to cover it.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of BLP content is similar to that already placed at Elon Musk. The rest of the article is not related to BLP; they are technical descriptions about the device and its viability, which satisfy WP:Notability, as it received attention on its own. Those wouldn't fit at Musk's article, yet are due weight for an article about the submarine itself. Diego (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are the proposed technical capabilities of a billionaire's failed PR stunt relevant independent of the billionaire?Simonm223 (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need it to be independent, we need it to be "notable" on its own, i.e. written in detail by independent reliable sources. Then we can write a WP:SUMMARY section in Musk's page, and a more detailed stand-alone article. Why would we want to have only the first, and lose some part of the reliably sourced descriptive content that is already written, when there's room to have both? Diego (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the crux. Notability is only there vis its position as a PR stunt of Elon Musk. It's all inherited. There's nothing to this story except a stupid twitter feud that a rich jerk decided to engage in and a length of tube.Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer this question: if a reader thought "I want to check Wikipedia to learn what happened with that Musk submarine, how it was made, and whether it could have really worked" (all of these, things that the media have cared about), where would you send them, and how much information they would get? I mean, without having to check the linked references to read the whole articles by themselves. Diego (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That question doesn't speak to WP:GNG which is what concerns us here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for being harsh, but are you saying that you're more concerned with following guidelines than providing information to readers? My read of the GNG is that, if there's enough information to write a detailed and neutral short article, you have passed it, because GNG basically asks "is there enough content to write a short, detailed, neutral article?" Diego (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's undue coverage of an irrelevant PR stunt with no independent notability from the person who proposed it. Answer this question, if Julie Payette had proposed making a submarine in these circumstances, would anybody care? And yet, she's if anything far more qualified for this sort of work than everybody's favourite battery hype man. The only relevance of this object is the person who proposed it. It's not independently notable. It doesn't have significant sustained coverage and a year from now, Elon Musk will be the only person who cares about it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, would have all the press covered it in depth for a week and still mention it one month later as an example every time they talk about her erratic behavior? Because that has totally happened with Musk. Also, you really should explain how the WP:DUE policy and WP:NOTINHERITED essay apply to having a stand-alone article, because I don't see anything in them about a topic that has GNG-level sourcing to it. DUE in particular seems to warn against the merge to the Musk article that you propose. Diego (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, I've said my piece, and barring any new information I am not changing my !vote which I believe to be justified by policy. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, but I think you seem to confound "it's covered with undue weight within another subject" and "it's not important". Those are different things, and only the first is policy. Diego (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the main article, per arguments by Diego Moya et al. I can't add much more. It's undue weight right now, and of minor importance, yet would add context and citations to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
Merge - Not sure why this needs a seperate article, No notability to warrant a seperate article. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, I can imagine this article being discussed for several reasons, namely 1) the behavior of wealthy benefactors like Musk, 2) time-constrained prototyping and manufacturing, 3) rescue attempts. Multiple reasons of interest makes a separate article more viable in my opinion, apart from any guidelines. Daask (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Having an entire article on this topic seems very much like Wikipedia:Recentism. If there's still significant news coverage a year from now, I'll certainly reconsider! Λυδ α cιτγ 03:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an absurdly high bar to cover - 1 month is usually viewed as more than sufficient in these AfDs as regards LASTING and RECENTISM. If that bar was required to be met on top of any other notability requirements, almost no events, criminals, olympic athletes etc would warrant coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2018 (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.