Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Semi


 * 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   snowball keep. There's no possibility that this will be closed any way other than keep, and keeping it open is just process for processes sake with the potential to cause bad feeling. &#8209; Iridescent 18:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Tesla Semi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an annonced future product of a type that is specifically addressed by the policy WP:CRYSTAL: "...short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." In the words of one of the cited sources: Tonight's Tesla Semi unveiling in Hawthorne, California wasn't about the nitty-gritty information, though. It was about fueling hype and excitement in a way that only Musk can."'' There are no independently verifiable facts about this future product, no published specification. The only information we have is self-published by the product's vendor. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL, this is not a short article. The implications of the announcement are huge.  Thousands of people dying because of pollution, thousands dying because of drugged or drowsy semi drivers.  The truck will revolutionize the industry.  If you do a search on a given 24 hour period you will find thousands of hits on this topic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To say nothing of the children. I didn't even think of the children. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete too soon in the creation process to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed Gene.redinger (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Yes, it's based on hype, but hype from Musk generates a thousand speculative articles across the spectrum for the foreseeable future. Having an article (flagged as having lousy sources) where we can document the origin of the speculations would be useful. (Yes, I'm aware I'm linking to a discussion describing arguments not to make in article deletion discussions). Among other things, if this article doesn't exist, it's going to get created multiple times in many forms under many names. With this article we can document that two prototypes have been built and shown, with various claims attached, and that external confirmation is not available. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Easily meets GNG, tons of sourcing. — JFG talk 15:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - 1. Wikipedias in other languages have the same article 2. Did anybody check the statistics of that article? This article has more than 1000 viewers per day at the moment. A very popular article in Wikipedia like "cat" has more than 6000 viewers per day. Who could be interested in deleting such an article ? Wega14 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It is notable and well sourced. It is not some vaporware from an unknown company.  StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep If something has a working prototype and hundreds of notable sources write about it, then it should have an article. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * keep meets WP:GNG, it's well sourced. not vaporware. 700k+ ghits, and coverage in major news media. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the fallacies in five of the keep !votes above: see 1. WP:OTHERLANGS which don't have the same guidelines as en.wikipedia and are often machine copies of the English article, among other reasons. 2. WP:POPULARPAGE -- If our goal was to maximize page hits, we'd have a lot more porn or celebrity gossip. 3. WP:Clearly notable. 4. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. The WP:NOT policy against product announcements doesn't carve out an exception because a prototype supposedly exists. Another reminder: we have no independent evidence the prototype is capable of anything close to the claimed performance, or even that it really works at all. We only have the company's own boasts. The 0-60 time or operating cost are just as dubious as the "nuclear explosion-proof glass”. If an individual boasted that they had invented cold fusion or had a secret love child with the Pope, we wouldn't treat these things as facts, or automatically want to repeat their boasts. Fans of Tesla (I count myself as one) are losing their perspective and objectivity. Consider the more sober assessment by industry analysts quoted at The Verge to cite one example: that the Roadster 2 and Semi look very much like clever distractions from the company's looming cash flow problems, and the "production hell" the Model 3 is mired in, which threatens the very existence of Tesla. But they can raise a quick $250 million in deposits for Roadster 2, and can distract investors from the company's troubles, proping up the stock price. If they never build the Semi or Roadster 2, nobody will care a year from now because they haven't really committed themselves to anything. From nothing comes nothing. These are some of the reasons why we've had the WP:CRYSTAL policy for so long.User:Tarl N., above, admits that their weak keep flies in the face of a number of article notability guidelines and AfD consensus, and WP:IAR allows that. I can respect that point of view, even if I happen to disagree. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And how is The Verge's analysis any less WP:CRYSTAL? Yes, they might "never build" them, but that's not our place to judge. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The industry analysts quoted have far more credibility than the breathless fanboys at the gaggle of green car blogs mostly cited, and they cast credible doubt on basically every single prediction in the article. So we have one source, Tesla, and we have many reasons to doubt that one source. The statements by the one source, Tesla, are not facts, they are speculation and conjecture. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The industry analysts have zero credibility. They have been predicting Tesla bankruptcy and other ills for years. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personal speculation about a company’s secret plans and motives, presented without evidence, is not a sound rationale for deleting a Wikipedia article. As far as I’m aware, no professional industry analyst thinks that the Tesla Semi is not a real vehicle that Tesla fully intends to build. I haven’t even seen an analyst question the advertised specs on the Semi. I believe Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s comment about “thermonuclear explosion-proof glass” was a joke, as he laughed when he said it and it got a laugh from the audience. Deepdeepocean (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is largely a promotional hype at this point. All that reliable sources are repeating is essentially that the announcement happened at this time and place, and Tesla (Musk) showed a prototype, described some prospective features, shared some numbers and made future projections. Nobody could possibly verify most of this information. A short section in the Tesla article should suffice. Popularity of the topic is not a good reason to have an article. Wikipedia is fundamentally about the accepted knowledge. There is no reliable knowledge at this point. Retimuko (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how WP:V works. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I used the word "verify" not in the same sense as WP:V. Yes, we can verify that Musk said certain things. I love electric cars, and wish Tesla the best of luck, but the article is about a bunch of promises at this point. Retimuko (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true, but they're still promises that have been widely reported on in the media. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic content. A quote from WP:CRYSTAL: "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Retimuko (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is encyclopedic, but it is a strong indication. WP:CRYSTAL product announcement is intended for the myriad of product announcements that happen readily, like a new version of car. Done with a press release and a couple of paragraphs of relevant info. In comparison there are working prototypes demonstrated to live audience, orders being taken, detailed specs released, including pricing. http://tesla.com/semi Product is being discussed widely from several perspectives and continues to be referenced widely in the media everyday. The article continues to be expanded everyday. And daily page views show the exceptional value of this page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This was the correct answer a half of decade ago. Why no one listened to this user is beyond me. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, there's a burst of coverage based on a press conference. But all those news outlets considered this worthy of covering. There's more than enough here to pass WP:GNG and that is all that matters. Things that don't exist, or things that might never exist, are still notable if they pass GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and or WP:PROMOTION, but noting the number of readers of the page, rather than an all out delete, a redirect to the relevant section (bolstered with more sources), looks more appropriate if this is not kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very useful for research. 1500 views per day. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As with the deletion nomination of Tesla Roadster (2020). Darius robin (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. See also Articles for deletion/Tesla Roadster (2020), opened 12 minutes later.  —Sladen (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Bushranger. The topic passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument for deleting the article seems to be that the Tesla Semi’s existence is dubious, or it’s dubious that the Semi’s advertised specs are achievable. However, no reliable source as been cited as sharing these doubts. On the other hand, major companies such as Walmart and J.B. Hunt have placed orders for the vehicle. This indicates that at least some trucking experts believe this vehicle is real and have some confidence in Tesla’s claims about it. Deepdeepocean (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * — Deepdeepocean (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep international media reception. Das ist der erste Truck von Tesla --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The only deletion reason I see so far was based on "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate". 18 kb, well sourced. This is not a short article, and it has much more than merely the product announcement. --mfb (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is not a short article, nor does it only rely on a product announcement. The WSJ article covering preorders (mentioned above) is a good example of that. It's clear that the paper didn't just rely on a Tesla press release but contacted preorder buyers and other companies of interest. This is not mere vaporware or product placement; preorders and interest by major shipping companies are present fact reported in secondary sources, not the sort of speculation or rumor that WP:CRYSTAL concerns. An AfD is premature for something generating this much coverage, when there's valid reason to expect coverage to continue and provide lasting notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. L3X1 (distænt write)  14:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets GNG/RS, and even if one car was never sold, the mere product announcement alone is notable in itself in this case and provides plenty of non-speculative information, voiding CRYSTAL concerns. South Nashua (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Am surprised that the nominator nominated it without looking at refs first. Slate (the very first ref) is reliable all alone. Adding to it LA Times, The Verge and TechCruch (good RS for autos, as far as I know), and its good to go article. Although YouTube and the rest can be removed or altered to appease the masses, but clearly deleting it is not an option.--Biografer (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Snowball clause I think WP:SNOWBALL should be invoked. The almost unanimous view is that the article should be kept. The user who nominated the argument for deletion cited WP:CRYSTALBALL, but that policy supports keeping the article: “Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.” This is a long article about a newly revealed product that includes information from independent analysts, not just product announcement information. Moreover, the user nominating the deletion seems to motivated by their personal speculation (not based on evidence) that the product announcement is deliberately deceptive and part of a secret plan by the company. That does not seem to be an appropriate reason to nominate an article for deletion. It would seem to violate WP:NOTFORUM. Plus, even if this speculation is true, then surely the article is all the more notable. If any reliable source believes the announcement is part of a secret plan to deceive investors, include that in the article. Deepdeepocean (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
 * — Deepdeepocean (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you wish to make any further personal accusations, you should take it to WP:ANI. Please be more familiar with the the WP:Assume good faith policy and the fallacies listed at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is not a vote, and large numbers of editors who argue "lots of google hits" or "just notable" or similar misunderstandings of Wikipedia guidelines don't count. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's vaporware. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.