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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Roadster (2020)[edit]

Tesla Roadster (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As with the Tesla Semi, this is an instance that is specifically addressed by the policy WP:CRYSTAL. Product announcemnts, even from reliable sources, are are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Everything we know about this future product comes entirely from self-published information by the product vendor. Aside from a raft of extraordinary claims, a complete specification has not been published, so it impossible for independent sources to even speculate as to whether this future product is at all feasible. Even if we had detailed specifications, and even if a prototype had been independently tested under conditions not stage managed by the product vendor, it is impossible to predict whether it can actually be mass produced at the claimed level of performance. Obvious objections are addressed by allusion to unseen future manufacturing processes. Reliable sources describe this as "showmanship"[1] and "fueling hype and excitement in a way that only Musk can"[2]. Policy clearly says we do not immediately create a new article in response to a splashy media unveiling. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• These quotes from the New York Times and Greentech Media are taken out of context and represented in a misleading way. Neither article questions the feasibility of the 2020 Tesla Roadster’s advertised specs, or questions whether it will be produced. The words “showmanship” and “hype” are used in a positive, complimentary way. Deepdeepocean (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose / keep we have articles on concept cars, which are paper products. The specs for the concept cars are pure dream material. However, the Roadster 2 is a real prototype car, which actually drives around. So, these cars exist already, and the concept of the Roadster 2 meets WP:GNG with widespread coverage in the press over several years. The article has several years worth of references. The physical cars were revealed recently, but the news coverage about the car has been going on for many years. The multiple years worth of coverage, prior to its unveiling shows enduring notability, found in multiple reliable sources. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment unlike many future products, this one was publicly previewed, with test rides, and reviews for the actual prototypes have been given, this is a physical object that has been evaluated by non-employees, some of them actual journalists. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment will the nominator be nominating for deletion the Porsche Mission E article soon? Or most of the articles in Category: Concept cars. The rationale behind the deletion nomination would mean almost every concept car article should be deleted. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First, please read WP:OSE. It's a violation of several policies to demand another editor take any action. See WP:NOTMANDATORY, for example. Wikipedia is built one tiny piece at a time. We each make our own tiny corner of Wikipedia better without having to be held responsible for boatloads of other articles. The kind of personal and confrontational tone contained in statements like "will the nominator be nominating for deletion the blah blah blah" is a violation of the civility policy and assumption of good faith. Do not invite other edtiors to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. This AfD decision hinges on the merits of the article, not other stuff.
  Second, a concept car is not an announced future product. They are self-contained works that serve a finite purpose: generally to showcase some new technology or styling idea. Sometimes just to make a statement about the company. Concept cars are not future products; they exist now. The crystal ball policy does not apply to them. It's true that sometimes concept cars are the ancestors (usually distant ones) of production cars, but we don't write articles about a hypothetical production car suggested by a concept shown at a show. Neither the Roadster 2 or the Semi are concept cars. They are future products that were announced just days ago, and the 'What Wikipedia is not' policy has a carefully written section on future products which is unmistakably aimed at exactly these cases. (Since you brought it up, that Porsche Mission E article is crystal ball crap and it should go, but I'll leave that as an exercise for others to deal with.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This car physically exists, and works, so it is something that is a "thing". It's publicly revealed, and publicly trialed. It is like any other public object, it has coverage from its existence. Instead of treating it as a future product (without actual public physical hardware) it can be considered a physical object that has been publicly seen. It still meets notability requirements as such a thing. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Publicly trialed"? What are you talking about? Source please. This car has not been tested. I hope you don't mean these theatrics. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is largely a promotional hype at this point. Reliable sources essentially just stated that the announcement happened at this time and place, and Tesla (Musk) described some 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. Retimuko (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see two major categories of arguments to keep: "we do it for other stuff" and "the topic is hot and the article is popular". Regarding the first one. Let's not bring up other stuff. If some other articles exist in violation of the policies, it does not justify this one. We might discuss the other ones as well, but not here. Regarding popularity. Hot news and marketing hype might be popular, but orthogonal to the purpose of encyclopedia. We would like to establish and maintain a reputation of being a reliable source. Creating a popular article based on hype might be damaging to such long term objectives. Retimuko (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you that if another article needs to be deleted that is immaterial to the reasons for deletion here, but what is the standard you are using from WP:DEL that you are using to justify why this article must be deleted? Is it a copyright violation? Is it patent nonsense? (aka literally smashing the keyboard or pure fiction) Does it have no reliable sources to confirm details in this article? Does it fail WP:NOTE?

    I don't see any reason given for deletion here. There is room for critics to voice their opinions (also subject to WP:RS and not something purely at random). You could perhaps very weakly suggest it is a content fork, but the fact is this article represents what is a new vehicle and only vaguely has anything to do with the previous incarnation. Even then, if it is a fork you are arguing about, it should be a merge and not a delete. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was clearly stated: product announcements are not appropriate encyclopedic content. See WP:CRYSTAL. Relevant quote: "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) 18:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in this context that policy doesn't apply, nor does this article fail the specific additional guidelines that have been adopted for new automotive models. I would suggest to re-read WP:NOTE and WP:DP specifically as that is the governing policy for this project. What you say is "not appropriate encyclopedic content" is not policy on Wikipedia. If you were relying strictly off of the press release and only the press release, it would be problems with WP:PRIMARY, but even that isn't the case here. Your standard is absurdly high for what it is that you are insisting as a reliable source and I really can't see what would possibly even pass the muster of whatever it is that might make this into an article worthy of keeping if it was strictly up to you. There also seems to be zero effort here to actually work to a consensus or suggest alternatives. You just want this article deleted and salted to ensure it will never be written. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

> Robert Horning "There also seems to be zero effort here to actually work to a consensus or suggest alternatives. You just want this article deleted and salted to ensure it will never be written."

What sort of misrepresentation of my words and assumption of bad faith was this? I wish Tesla the best of luck and want to see this article in due course and about an actual product. Currently half of the article is in the future tense. I cited the policy regarding merging into a larger topic (Tesla article) and suggested this in my very first message here. How can you say that I don't suggest alternatives? If we just keep the facts, it will be just a short section, and likely stay that way for another year or two. Retimuko (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest an alternative then. Under what possible conditions would you consider that this article ought to be kept? When the Tesla Roadster II goes in front of an independent reviewer to tear it apart and can individually show each part? When an academic peer reviewed article detailing the specs of this vehicle appears in some formal journal? I'm not seeing the standard here.

If you wanted to have this merged into the general Tesla article, then that should have been your position instead of deletion. I'm also suggesting that your interpretation of policy is in error here and doesn't apply to what is the case here. I've long felt that mergers were akin to deletion anyway, but until the above statement you didn't even suggest merger was an option in your view.

We can disagree on that point and seek arbitration on that point by arguing specific policy points, but my assertion is that since this is an announced vehicle showing up in annual and quarterly reports for this company rather than rumor and speculation that it could be a vehicle (which would be a crystal ball issue), your assertion no longer applies. The assertion that only one source of information exists is also in error, even though performance specs haven't been "independently tested". Qualifications about the source of that information can and should be put into the article as editorial issues and not a part of the decision as to if this article needs to be kept or not. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Did anybody check the statistics of that article? [3] This article has more than 15.000 viewers per day and belongs to the most popular articles in Wikipedia at the moment. Even a popular article like "cat" has less viewers. [4] Who could have interest to delete such an article? Wega14 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Easily meets GNG. — JFG ^talk 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tesla may not manage to manufacture it in great numbers by 2020, but this is a significant vehicle. See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/17/tesla-roadster-electric-supercar-elon-musk-fast BUT, the article needs work; there are far too many citations, some containing incorrect information. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We create smartphone articles when they are announced, not when they go on sale. Same concept applies here. It's not a concept as of now, as a few of them were manufactured to exhibit to the media. Darius robin (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The car exists. In a worst case scenario all that would have to change is the description of whether the car went into sales production or failed to go to market. MartinezMD (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without going into tedious detail, the thing these keep arguments have in common is exceptionalism and special pleading. Is there such a thing as WP:ATA bingo? There should be. No matter how much we might like Tesla or how unique the company may be, we can't go on lowering the bar for them. The same standards should be applied to all products. And the Roadster 2, as claimed, does not verifiably exist. We saw a car, and we heard a lot of self-serving hype about it. The surest way to keep from being bamboozled is to apply the same standards we would to a new model of washing machine or new soft drink. If half of Musk's boasts pan out, they hardly need Wikipedia selling itself out to save the company or help sell cars. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This car does verifiably exist in prototype form. "We saw a car" (and coverage of that car in secondary sources) is enough to verify that Tesla has a Tesla Roadster prototype. Your concerns or questions about the vehicle's promised performance don't (and can't) negate the fact that the car does exist. Whether a rollout is enough to confirm existence is irrelevant and academic anyway, since we also have independent confirmation that the vehicle exists and is operational, including video. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + semi-protect, or Move back to Draft:. Apologies to all if it was moved over to article space too soon. The article already existed at Draft:Tesla Roadster 2, and will exist in main article space either now, or sometime soon: the question is whether the article was migrated too soon—in which case it wants moving back to Draft:Telsa Roadster (2020). The whole "unveil" appears to have clouded and confused the issue, although we now have a CC-BY-SA photo, and some hard numbers to cite. As for quality aspect, it is getting 15k+ views per day, which means a good proportion of enthusiastic IP edits, lowering the quality of article—the solution to that is semi-protect, not deletion. —Sladen (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Revolutionary product that puts gas cars to shame. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't vaporware from an unknown company, it is a notable product announced by a notable company. StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hardly distinguishable from a notable vaporware from a notable company at this point. Retimuko (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Active development is being done to bring this car to production status, many automotive outlets have stories on this. Nightfury 22:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is an announced vehicle. The standard for automotive models is that such articles don't pass muster until it has been formally announced, but that threshold has been more than passed and then some. This has numerous reliable sources that easily passes WP:NOTE and a physical prototype that can be touched and operated. This is not a mere concept but something going into formal production and orders are being taken. If this was speculation about a vehicle that was just rumors or an off-hand remark by a senior executive at the company, I'd completely support the deletion of this article. At it stands though, a formal reveal of the vehicle has happened, reporters from multiple organizations and even private individuals have actually driven in this car, and it is very notable. It sounds as though the proposer for this AfD wants a much higher standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.... like perhaps multiple peer-reviewed academic journal articles about this vehicle first or perhaps something even more substantial than that. I really don't know the extreme to which they are looking, but the standard for any other automobile model announced by any other manufacturer ought to be the case here rather than trying to dump on Tesla as this appears to be right now. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no persuasive reason to delete this article. Lepricavark (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What's the point of having to delete this article? Once we get the finalized statistics we would have to rewrite the Wikipedia page by then. Ecks Dey (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is precedent. The article for the Tesla Model 3 was created the day after the car was unveiled, same as the 2020 Tesla Roadster. That car has now been delivered to over 250 customers.^[1] Also, journalists and members of the public have taken filmed test rides in the 2020 Tesla Roadster.^[2] At most, skepticism should be directed toward the claimed specs for the car, not the existence or notability of the car itself. Deepdeepocean (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong keep - This is a new vehicle type that has been formally announced, debuted as a working prototype, and received substantial coverage in numerous secondary sources. Working manufacturer prototypes by themselves can be sufficiently notable to warrant their own page, even if the vehicle never reaches production status. Nothing about this article/subject represents the kind of future event, speculation or rumor that WP:CRYSTAL cautions against. The second-gen Tesla Roadster now exists in prototype form and the event of its announcement has already occurred. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see its encyclopedic notability at this point, regardless of whether it enters production or not. I suggest, constructively and respectfully, that the AfD nominator re-read and try to better understand WP:CRYSTAL before declaring topics like this a clear violation of it. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG/RS, definitely not a CRYSTAL, if only for the coverage so far. South Nashua (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball clause I am invoking WP:SNOWBALL. 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) 05:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I suggest you read Wikipedia:Snowball clause more carefully, as well as WP:Assume good faith. You clearly did not read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. If you had read WP:BADNAC, the very first thing listed is "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved". You already !voted above. You have made numerous arguments bqaed on well known fallacies and I suggest this is something you should step away from until you've had more experience. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

To Deepdeepocean for attempting to NAC an AfD they had !voted in, and to Dennis Bratland for reverting an inappropriate early closure without asking an an uninvolved administrator to do so, as BADNAC ifself asserts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep I was going to sit this one out as self- evident and because I had discussed this with the nom on the Talk Page about his concerns, but as the badnac fell through, here I am. The above del !Vote doesn't quite make sense, if anything, that person is advocating chopping the article down to size, not deletion. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (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.