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 delete. The delete !votes are not only SNOW but compelling arguments. Whether or not this could ever be encyclopedic, I will create a copy at User:Jaredscribe/Tesla Master Plan per the creator's request. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla master plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I can't see how a corporate business plan fits into an encyclopedia (WP:SOAP or WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Sure, lots of RS but such business publications continuously report on business plans of all major corporations, just nothing but routine reporting for investors (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE). P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article, such as it is (which doesn't amount to much) seems to be built entirely around the premise that a 'business plan' can have notability independent of the business that created it. Any evidence supporting such a radical proposal is entirely lacking however, along with independent sourcing for anything of consequence. The article appears to have been created as a POV-fork of Tesla, Inc., which discusses the Tesla company's business strategy etc in the proper context, citing analysis from independent sources, rather than treating it as some sort of philosophical abstraction or message from the gods. Accordingly, while I could possibly concede that Wikipedia might at some point in time construct a legitimate article about a 'business plan', if the plan itself (rather than the entity creating it) were the subject of significant in-depth critical analysis, this regurgitation of self-promotional hyperbolae in no shape or form resembles such content, or even hints that there is even the slightest prospect that it might do so in the future. If there was anything in it which merited merging to the article it is an unambiguous fork of, that possibly deserve consideration, but I can't for the life of me see any. Delete it as the vacuous primary-sourced fluff it clearly is. If people want to read Tesla's self-promotional material, we provide a link in the company article infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per AndyTheGrump's excellent arguments. QRep2020 (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As of today, over a dozen independent sources have now been given for the 'radical proposal', and for much that is of consequence. See my reply to my own post below.

  Objection to the vote for deletion The original nominator failed to do what is required according to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Considerations, and you also, the primary cheerleader for deletion, have failed to do it. I will quote our policy here:

  First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ((notability)) template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. See WP:Before.

  The closing admin should ignore this users vote, and all the others who echo him. His ignorance is his own fault, not my fault for having failed to provide the citations in a more timely manner. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm quite sure that the closer will be capable of deciding for themselves what should or shouldn't be ignored, taking into account all relevant Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or redirect to Tesla, Inc.) Sure, it is easily sourced, but I am not seeing support for independent notability that would get it past the Wikipedia:SOAPBOX and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not issues here, and notability isn’t inherited simply because it’s about notable Tesla. It’s not unique information compared with Tesla, Inc., just unique formatting. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have reviewed the discussion of Fordism and The Toyota Way below, but it didn’t change my view that this is a delete. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the key reason, but even if we consider those two articles, they’re not supporting precedent for the nominated article. Both Fordism and The Toyota Way are far broader topics than the nominated article, encompassing a set of management principles and philosophy, while the article nominated here is a product roadmap. Both topics are also relevant to other topics, Fordism is key to various topics surrounding consumerism, and The Toyota Way is relevant in part to topics like lean manufacturing. A product roadmap is a weak comparison, and even if Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS didn’t…pardon the inadvertent pun, exist…wouldn’t support this article to change my view,

  Plus…Both Fordism and The Toyota Way (despite that article’s flaws) as TOPICS, not articles, have been the topics of books and/or numerous scholarly articles discussing business, economics, industrial, and historical topics, while (with few exceptions) most sources pertaining to the nominated topic are not in-depth, are routine coverage, are promotional in nature, are speculative, or otherwise fail to support this product roadmap as a separate notable topic.

  If the article was about a detailed, overarching management philosophy and was supported by numerous in-depth sources, the situation might be different, but in my view that support simply isn’t there at this time. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for considering the issue, and I agree with your analysis. Being somewhat new to AfDs, I wasn't aware of arguments to avoid - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The comparison with these, I hope will prove that the article is neither PROMO or SOAPBOXing. It doesn't prove independent notability, though, as you mention.

  Please consider my reply below, and the many more independent sources I've recently added, to establish notability. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed the sources you’ve added. You did a good job of finding sources, but the only article that really hints at anything of an overarching worldview is the NPR article, but it’s more of Elon Musk’s worldview, and would belong in his article or the Tesla article. The material I’m seeing is largely speculative and doesn’t get into DETAIL about how this is a philosophy of management or a plan that goes beyond their basic business roadmap. Tesla the company is doing notable, revolutionary things, but that notability is not inherited by their business roadmap. I would need something more to support this topic having its own article, and at this time the support for that independent notability just isn’t out there, it’s not a matter of you not adding it, it’s a matter of it simply not being out there. The roadmap may someday be notable, if books and scholarly articles end up being written about it in depth as a management philosophy, but as of right now this isn’t material that has *independent* notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fordism has also been studied in business journals for decades now, this Tesla "thing" isn't at that level yet. Perhaps can revisit in a few years if this is proven to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP for all the reasons stated here:

Talk:Tesla master plan § Broad social, cultural, scientific, and technological interest

However, if editors on Tesla, Inc. will permit me to rewrite that article to remove its bias toward presentism, consumerism, and product marketing, I may concede to have it deleted. Perhaps I can merge this content in, which is related toward larger issues of widespread social and environmentalist concern. In short, the article I propose here would more or less ignore the "business" and consumer marketing to focus more on industrial design and materials science, and environmental ethics. By comparison, we have articles on Fordism and and The_Toyota_Way, apart from that on the Ford motor company or Toyota motors.

Although we as editors not permitted to soapbox, the subject of the article is. If Tesla Inc. and Mr. Musk are engaging in ADVOCACY, it is the duty of the encyclopedia to report that and adequately cover it. We should not suppress that advocacy under a mainstream bias toward consumer capitalist business-as-usual. This environmentalist advocacy is what makes Tesla Inc. qualitatively different from other automakers, in addition to quickly having become the world's most valuable one. These are two highly NOTABLE facts, that others appear to be deliberately ignoring.

See discussion here: Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Business_Strategy_=>_Sustainable_energy_economy

I'm the one who wrote the article. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with Fordism and 'The Toyota Way' are, needless to say, absurd. And would remain so even if WP:OTHERSTUFF wasn't a core subtopic of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Fordism, as a term, encompasses a whole lot more than a 'business plan' for a specific company - it is (or was) central to a Marxist critique (began by Antonio Gramsci) of production-line-based manufacture that simultaniously specialised and deskilled the workforce to an extent previously unencountered. As can be readily ascertained from our article, there are a great many academic sources discussing the topic in detail, noting the influence Fordism had on Stalin, and placing it within broader discourse over 'consumerism', manufacturing technology and the social effects of globalised production methods.

As for Toyota, I will merely note that a recent AfD discussion closed as 'no consensus', and I'd suggest that if that topic is indeed independently Wikipedia-'notable', the article as it stands does a desperately poor job of explaining why in any coherent manner. The article is a mess, with uncritical regurgitation of Toyota 'principles' followed by a token 'results' section that fails to actually elucidate to any meaningful extent on what independent sources have to say about the consequences of the 'principles', either to Toyota or to the broader manufacturing world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I would like to suggest that Jaredscribe's hand-waving at talk-page discussions elsewhere is contrary to the process laid out in WP:DISCUSSAFD. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a closer to read though material elsewhere in the hope of figuring out exactly what the 'reasons stated' are. Policy-based arguments for a 'keep' are generally simple to make (e.g. through demonstrating that sufficient third-party sources exist etc), and should be stated directly in the AfD discussion, where they can be assessed by all, and responded to if appropriate. If Jaredscribe wants his arguments for keeping the article to be taken into consideration, he should state them explicitly here. And if he isn't prepared to do that, the closer will, in my opinion, be entirely justified in simply ignoring them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section Tesla, Inc. § Business strategy which references the Tesla master plan, is inadequate for several reasons.

Biased toward a consumerist perspective, it gives WP:UNDUE weight to marketing and WP:PROMO, while ignoring the broader social, cultural, scientific, and technological issues, which were explictly stated by Mr. Musk the the opening sentence of his master business plan, 2006 "part one", to wit:

The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution.

For my attempts to include this in the alleged POV-fork article, I have been perversely accused of "promotional marketing bullsh--t" by some WP:Illustrious Looshpah "master editors", who I dare say are ignoramuses.

Jaredscribe (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like your promotional marketing bullshit being described as promotional marketing bullshit I suggest you stop posting promotional marketing bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally, It needs to be noted that JaredScribe made absolutely no effort to remedy any supposed deficiencies in the Tesla Inc. article prior to creating this fork. Not a single post on the talk page making raising any issues. No effort whatsoever. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was new to editing this entire subject-matter area.

But now I've made substantial post on the talk page making and raising the issue.

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Business_Strategy_=>_Sustainable_energy_economy

Instead of responding, he and @QRep2020 have decided to edit-war, reverting my contribution there, with dishonest and demonstrably untrue arguments given in their edit summaries. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added over a dozen citations to establish independent notability of this topic, from Reuters, Wired magazine, New York Times, Ars Technica, Techcrunch, Washington Post, Austin Statesman, and others. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that the consensus will be to delete,

I ask the closing admin to DRAFTIFY the article, or move it to my userspace so I can continue to research it.

I am an amateur engineer, an environmentalist, a futurist, and I find this topic intellectually interesting even if no one else does, and even if no one else is able to conceive of anything except its tangential value to the marketing department. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Drafts, I'd like to make my objection to draftification clear - we don't need drafts of POV-forks, and the appropriate place for content regarding Tesla's plans is in the main Tesla Inc article. There is clearly no prospect of this draft ever becoming an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the lede paragraph today. Its not merely a business plan in the ordinary consumer capitalist sense:

The Tesla master plan is the mission statement of American electric vehicle and clean energy company Tesla Inc. to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy."^[1][2][3] For a $10 trillion investment, Musk claims the entire world can move wholesale to a renewable energy grid to power electric cars, planes, and ships.^[4] It presents the business model of Tesla, Inc. as part of a strategic plan for a fossil-fuel phase-out leading to a renewable energy transition, in order to prevent civilizational collapse. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have added does anything whatsoever to indicate that this is not a POV fork of the Tesla, Inc. article. Sources discussing publicity material from a company are not evidence that the publicity material is somehow an independent topic. That is an utterly absurd proposition, and entirely at odds with even a basic understanding of Wikipedia notability criteria. And I note that you yourself seem to have acknowledged that discussion of Tesla's statements regarding their objectives belong in the main Tesla article, where you offered to "concede" to the deletion of this article provided the main article was modified to suit your perspective (itself a proposal entirely at odds with how Wikipedia works, since an AfD discussion cannot mandate changes to content elsewhere). Given the total absence of any support here for your arguments it seems self-evident that this article is going to be deleted, and I suggest you stop wasting your time on this fools errand and find something more productive to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 5:08, 28 March 2023‎ (UTC)

Sources

^ Desjardins, Jeff. "Here's what the future of Tesla could look like". Business Insider. Retrieved 2023-03-27. ^ Domonske, Camila (1 March 2023). "Tesla has a new master plan. It's not a new car — just big thoughts on planet Earth". NPR. ^ "What's in Elon Musk's Master Plan 3 for Tesla investors? Here's what we know". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved 2023-03-27. ^ Marshall, Aarian. "The Mystery Vehicle at the Heart of Tesla's New Master Plan". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2023-03-28.

• Delete Tesla is not a run-of-the-mill company, and its strategy could be a plausible topic for a stand-alone article. However, the article we have here seems to be synthesis between what was planned at Tesla, what happened at Tesla, and what Elon Musk's reality-distortion field wants to believe happened. There is nothing here that would need to be merged to History of Tesla, Inc., which is a possible redirect target. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons stated by AndyTheGrump and Walt Yoder. BenzoAid (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above reasons and per the arguments I made when I endorsed the prod. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOAPBOX --Ita140188 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is just PR for Tesla, and has no place in this encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is reads as part PR, part soapbox, and part sensationalized POV fork of Sustainable energy. I checked a couple of the recently-added sources that are claimed to demonstrate notability and they aren't really about the content of the plan. E.g. the NYT source is mostly about Tesla's 3-hour event on Feb 26 in which the plan was revealed, and most of the source is about the questions that were not answered in the plan or the event. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really an encyclopedic topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for PR or soapboxing but also, topic fails our criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've never seen a page like this on enwiki before, and for good reason. Promotional pages like these just do not belong on the encyclopedia. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, no redirect As the nom has made clear they'll override any consensus and throw this back into draftspace or create a never-ending deletion review, I don't want them to have the opportunity to. This is unfiltered 'PR' junk (since there's no PR department there), and as with all of these source-spammed articles, just because there are multiple articles about something doesn't make it notable. The article creator also has major CIR concerns. Nate • (chatter) 02:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Business plans are not notable, and likely proprietary information that shouldn't be disseminated. Could perhaps be a small mention in the main Tesla article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't based on any substantive 'business plan' as such. It merely cherry-picks (and sometimes misrepresents) aspects of three promotional documents, written by Elon Musk, from 2006, 2016, and 2023. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2023 (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.