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. Going with the keeps. Feel free to propose merger on appropriate talk pages if someone deems necessary. Missvain (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Easter eggs in Tesla products[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)

A list that is full of overdetailed trivia, verging on WP:NOT. To be fair I am not proposing that we chuck the article's content in the bin and forget about it, I support an option to partially merge some of this content into respective relevant articles where the topics in question have been mentioned, as long as it is appropriate. talk to !dave 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. talk to !dave 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. talk to !dave 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news media covers Easter eggs from Tesla. https://time.com/4290474/tesla-easter-egg-mario-kart/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/technology/easter-eggs-tesla-google.html https://www.cnet.com/pictures/tesla-easter-eggs/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/tesla-easter-egg-makes-the-world-s-fastest-car-even-faster https://www.engadget.com/2016-12-23-tesla-hides-two-easter-eggs-in-its-latest-software-update.html https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/elon-musk-distracts-us-from-bad-news-with-psychedelic-cowbell-road-tesla-easter-egg-and-it-worked https://www.engadget.com/2017-04-07-tesla-owners-can-expect-easy-access-to-all-discovered-easter-egg.html etc. etc. Easy to find, just search for it. 135 references in the article already. If the news media talks about it, its notable, that's how Wikipedia works. Dream Focus 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say that this falls somewhere between WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Specifically, it's the "products -> activation -> description" that doesn't sit right with me. I've no doubt that the concept of Tesla easter eggs is notable, but there should be an article, or a section in an article, that is more about how Tesla began incorporating Easter eggs into their car models, why the ones are chosen as they are, rather than a list that's really a step above up up down down left right left right B A start. Even if a list like this were to occur, I don't see a downside in WP:TNTing, considering how 1. trivia laden it is and 2. the flattering portrait of Elon Musk that it paints. In particular, the second section of "Notable omissions" is really just "a list of things Elon Musk likes", with a side of "see! He was praised in Star Trek!" Kncny11 ^(shoot) 22:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With well over 100 references to news articles, the topic is dense with primary sources and has undeniable notability. None of the reasons for deletion apply to this article to any significant degree. While the article is not perfect, existing imperfections warrant improvement through editing as opposed to unilateral deletion. This article is the only existing resource for a full and near comprehensive treatment of the article topic. Deleting this article would go against Wikipedia's purpose (to benefit readers with free information on all branches of knowledge) by eliminating that knowledge for approximately 450 people per day. There is precedent for this type of article including List of Easter eggs in Microsoft products and List of Google Easter eggs. Neither of these lists of easter eggs are currently being considered for deletion. Finally, it may be useful to know that I already plan to refresh the article (I am the original author) before the end of this year. For example, I agree with Kncny11 that the Products/Activation/Description format is not the best. I intend to get rid of that completely. In general, the article could use some futureproofing. Language and information that can become obsolete will be removed. Nevertheless, these are aspects of editing and improving, rather than grounds for complete deletion.
Reply to points from Kncny11:
"I would say that this falls somewhere between WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Specifically, it's the "products -> activation -> description" that doesn't sit right with me."
While I disagree with your assessment that this article is something between a indiscriminate collection of information, or a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, I can see that the format makes it feel this way a bit. I intend to move more towards the format of other lists of easter eggs as discussed above (Google and Microsoft). In particular, I will remove the products -> activation -> description structure. Just need some time to make the edits.
"I've no doubt that the concept of Tesla easter eggs is notable, but there should be an article, or a section in an article, that is more about how Tesla began incorporating Easter eggs into their car models, why the ones are chosen as they are, rather than a list that's really a step above up up down down left right left right B A start."
I would encourage you to add such a section (with references) to this article! Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instructs that "the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text". This article is rich with notable, well cited information that is clearly of interest to people. It should not be lost.
"Even if a list like this were to occur, I don't see a downside in WP:TNTing, considering how 1. trivia laden it is and 2. the flattering portrait of Elon Musk that it paints. In particular, the second section of "Notable omissions" is really just "a list of things Elon Musk likes", with a side of "see! He was praised in Star Trek!""
All that you refer to is referenced to notable primary sources. But if you think it is biased or could be better, please make additions/edits and include citations. If there are specific issues you would like to discuss, happy to do that too, but specific small issues in an article are not grounds for complete deletion. The problem with "blow it up and start over" is, who will start over? If given until the end of 2021, I plan to start from the existing rigorously cited text, improve the format, and futureproof by removing anything that can change with software updates or new products. I think this is a better option as compared to WP:TNTing.
JacksonKP (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't doubt that it is notable. It's just that this is content that falls under WP:TRIVIA IMO. My nomination vote isn't a proper delete, I respect that (some of) this content is mergeable, maybe a worthy mention in respective articles. talk to !dave 07:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prune - I've only edited this article once, and that was to remove some info that although sourced clearly is not an Easter Egg. I'm sure that some of the entries here are noteworthy and valid, but I'm equally sure that some aren't. I propose that with some pruning to bring the article into line, it would be a valid and decent addition to the project. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and prune Indeed a notable subject but the impression of WP:NOT needs to be reduced. Sachin.cba (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN. The nomination is just a mix of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. See also WP:MAD. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief one to three paragraph summary to Tesla, Inc. or any more suitable article. The topic of "Easter eggs in Teasla products" seems to have received coverage, but the amount of prose you're going to get out of it seems very small. Listing every instance of an Easter egg is the definition of trivia. TTN (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge per the points brought up by TTN. The information on this list seems more apt for a brief mention on the articles for the cars themselves, and the fact that easter eggs have been incorporated into many Tesla cars could definitely be mentioned on the article for the company itself. The tone of this article feels fancruft-y to me though, especially the 'Notable omissions' section, which is entirely inappropriate. Waxworker (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep vote already made above. TTN, Waxworker, and Dave generally show some support and make points towards keeping some smaller subset of List of Easter eggs in Tesla products by merging it with other articles. I think that this approach overlooks that there is precedent for this type of article including List of Easter eggs in Microsoft products and List of Google Easter eggs. Both articles could be merged with Microsoft and Google respectively, but they have not, and there is currently no proposal to do so, either by Dave or any other commenter. Both of these later Easter egg specific articles have been around for on the order of 15 years without being merged or lost so I think that sets a clear precedent. By merging and shedding some significant portion of List of Easter eggs in Microsoft products in the process, much notable content would be lost which is contrary to the Wikipedia policy, and specifically policy mentioned above regarding the deletion of salvageable text.JacksonKP (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge discussion for the other two articles with the focus towards putting the relevant information in them in a better space. Regardless of that, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't really have any place in this discussion. TTN (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep vote already made above. TTN and Dave point to much of List of Easter eggs in Tesla products as trivia. Trivia is defined as (petty) details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value. While this argument may apply to extreme cases of articles composed of minutia, it should be clear that what is trivia and what is not trivia is subjective. Rather, the measure of what is noteworthy in Wikipedia is based on (among other things) the existence of news media coverage. List of Easter eggs in Tesla products has a high density of this coverage evenly dispersed throughout the article. There are many Wikipedia articles that I find to be trivia, however it is not my perspective that is important, but rather the measurement of the standard of noteworthiness set by Wikipedia. If every article were deleted or truncated and merged because some subset of readers found the article to be subjective, Wikipedia may become very small. JacksonKP (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is trivia or not is going to be a subjective discussion, but we have to think of the inclusion of material from the perspective of a general encyclopedia. For a lack of a better term, it's similar to game guide material. The overall topic of the game is obviously notable, but we only need a basic overview of the game mechanics to understand the topic. That's the same with this topic, we need a summary of what they are, how they came to be, the development of their popularity, and the most notable cases of them. The list is superfluous information that is neat but ultimately too fan orientated. TTN (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep vote already made above. Waxworker points to "tone" and how the article "feels". Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and particularly Graham's hierarchy of disagreement within the dispute resolution page teaches that arguments of "tone" (second from the bottom on the hierarchy) is not a strong form of criticism. Notability is the standard and notability is based on the General notability guidelines. List of Easter eggs in Tesla products clearly meets these guidelines. JacksonKP (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is properly sourced. Argument against it seems to be somewhere between petty and vindictive based on the comments above. Nweil (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2021 (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.