Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of predictions for autonomous Tesla vehicles by Elon Musk: Difference between revisions

List of predictions for autonomous Tesla vehicles by Elon Musk (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)

This is a list of quotations with original analysis about their merit, and it does not meet Wikipedia’s requirements for standalone lists. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or weak merge – Topic has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. The entries in the list are simply WP:CALC becuase they are binary outcomes on specific predictions by the dates given in the predictions. EDIT: I’ve been persuaded by @Rollinginhisgrave that the article could be merged if that would achieve consensus. But I feel a straight deletion is unjustified. gilgongo (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per above. There’s no question that Musk’s predictions about the operational autonomy of Tesla vehicles have been widely discussed, as a group, by plenty of reliable independent researchers. QRep2020 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. His predictios have been discussed as a group[1][2][3]. Kelob2678 (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: His predictions have been discussed as a group, but the function of this list is effectively dunking on the guy for making wrong predictions. It is very close to an attack page, certainly below the threshold of what we should be comfortable with as a conservatively-written BLP, and a few lines in Elon Musk would completely adequately convey the information sources are discussing as a group. More detail could be allocated across the discussion of history at Tesla, Inc. As to CALC, anything highlighted in yellow falls below the basic allowance of 1+1=2, as they are entirely analytical, and I am very unimpressed with drawing “predictions” from vague comments in transcripts of earnings calls without secondary source commentary. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 08:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC) Potential merge targets include Views of Elon Musk, Tesla, Inc., and Elon Musk. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 10:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing said in the paragraphs surrounding the list or in the list itself that “dunks” on Musk – it simply records his predictions, which are the subject of notable industry and wider cultural discussion, and whether they came to be. It might feel like an attack page because of the sheer quantity of listed false predictions, but that’s not the list’s fault. QRep2020 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s the structure of the list and the fact that it is given its own page that makes it read like a dunk list. And you are being told that another editor in good faith is reading this list as dunking on Musk, and I’m sure the BLP subject would feel the same. Even if you think this passes a notability threshold, as a WP:PAGEDECIDE matter, avoiding pages coming off like an attack page to some readers and probably the article subject is more important than the extra granularity of detail you can fit in than a summary at Elon Musk or Tesla, Inc., and that’s especially compounded when that granularity is necessitating OR. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think insulating subjects from negative perceptions is what Wikipedia should be doing though (unless the article otherwise fails WP:NLIST). That would bring Crime in London or Category:Space missions that ended in failure into question, no? gilgongo (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think I have presented the idea that we should be insulating subjects from negative perceptions. I think putting negative (and positive) information about a BLP in context rather than elevating it to its own page with the effect of mockery/adulation is standard practice for BLPs.

  On your comment above, I’m curious about your and others characterization of this list as a “binary” when the article gives at least three options. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 10:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I’m not opposed to it being moved into a main article if need be. And you make a good point about the “binary” characterisation. I only really made that as I thought perhaps there was an accusation of synthesis. I agree that in some cases it’s not as straighforward as that, but again as long as it’s not original research that should be fine. gilgongo (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve updated my vote to explicitly support a merge and proposed another merge target.

  I do struggle to see how you can view any of the yellow characterizations as not interpretive, which is prohibited under WP:OR. No sources are describing these as “partial completion” of predictions, it’s apparently just us. I’ll leave this as my final comment here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 10:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete – I agree with Rollinginhisgrave’s reasoning. This page serves no legitimate purpose and is better suited elsewhere, if included at all. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is simply a list of relevant and verifiable binary information. I see no reason to remove it. Antimundo (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While this may seem like a simple list on the surface and is factually correct, it’s undeniable that it portrays Elon Musk in a bad way. The whole article is based on single sentences the man said between years. If it’s not discriminatory, why don’t we have this exact page for Sundar Pichai, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos or someone else too? This article does not belong in an encyclopedia and is not neutral. Any article that is solely built on something that someone said does not hold ground. User4926 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated predictions on a specific, single event by Pichai, Cook or Bezos are not the subject of widespread debate and independent coverage outside of Wikipedia. Yes, the article puts the subject in a bad light, but so does the article on Harold Shipman. gilgongo (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While there is talk about his predictions, it is my belief that that alone is not enough for a Wikipedia article. This is just a list of sentences Musk has said over the years, and it does not hold any real meaning. User4926 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about re-casting the article to be “List of predictions for autonomous vehicles”, so as to include predictions by others? This too has been discussed as a group (although since Musk is the most prolific, it tends to center on him), and would include predictions for full autonomy by Uber, BMW, Ford and others over the last 15 years I think. gilgongo (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

”’Keep”’ This set of specific claims over time have been exhaustively reported by reliable sources. It is undeniably a hot topic in business and technology domains, as is the case with many nascent technologies. Commentary above about not portraying a subject in a positive light is seriously misguided as that has nothing to do with the purpose of Wikipedia articles and nothing to do with neutral point of view, for that matter. As is common with List… articles, the content is too lengthy to practically move into, say, the main Tesla article. Many nominations for deletions are debatable, but this one isn’t even close in my view. ~2025-40189-69 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]