Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:21, 14 June 2024

Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg

[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)

Submitting for AfD as I believe there should be a discussion over the merits of this article. While it is backed by reliable sources I believe it can be argued quite easily that this article isn't suitable for inclusion on grounds of lacking encyclopaedic merit.

Boiled down to its core I believe this article is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM in its worst form, namely something that was created and extended as events unfolded but an article where If we apply the 10 year test it's extremely hard to think anyone will be looking back on this after any serious period of time as a notable event of history given it's an article about a non-event that never happened.

As a result I believe this should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :{{la|1=Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 14#{{anchorencode:Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1227522382/cur|edits since nomination]])
 :({{Find sources AFD|title=Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg}})
-Submitting for AfD as I believe there should be a discussion over the merits of this article. While it is backed by WP:RS I believe it can be argued quite easily that this article isn't suitable for inclusion on grounds of lacking encyclopaedic merit.
+Submitting for AfD as I believe there should be a discussion over the merits of this article. While it is backed by reliable sources I believe it can be argued quite easily that this article isn't suitable for inclusion on grounds of lacking encyclopaedic merit.
 Boiled down to its core I believe this article is a clear example of [[WP:RECENTISM]] in its worst form, namely something that was created and extended as events unfolded but an article where If we apply the [[WP:10YEARTEST|10 year test]] it's extremely hard to think anyone will be looking back on this after any serious period of time as a notable event of history given it's an article about a non-event that never happened.