Deletion of Elon Musk's submarine

Comment: into Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. The event is not independently notable of Musk and it does not satisfy . There is consensus at Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue#Survey that the submarine was a minor event compared to the entire rescue; devoting an entire article to it would be undue. A similar example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan, which was closed in favour of a merge. In this case, I suggest merging it to Elon Musk because the submarine and subsequent tweets attracted attention primarily because of Musk. This is a minor social media incident which got blown over and then coverage gradually decreases. Given our BLP policies which advise against devoting too much space to minor events, I think a couple of sentences in Elon Musk should be good enough to cover it
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: I was originally thinking merge, but I believe it has more than enough coverage to satisfy the main branch of notability. Then it has plenty of content to warrant a CONTENTFORK. Coverage also extended on long enough to satisfy  - https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17576302/elon-musk-thai-cave-rescue-submarine Vox and https://hackaday.com/2018/07/17/lets-talk-about-elon-musks-submarine/ Hackaday just to give a couple (there's plenty if you do a time-focused search). The sub was a sufficiently big part of the event, regardless of actual lack of usage, to achieve notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: Already overwhelms the Elon Musk article as a section. This insignificant event has zero 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: per  and . I started the article mainly with content that had been removed from Tham Luang cave rescue for being too detailed for that article, and because there were too many sources covering the development of this technological implement with a level of detail that was notable and in-depth, but not directly related to the rescue. There have been many articles dedicated both to the technological aspects of the device and its viability as submarine rescue equipment, as well as about the incident with its promoter and its angle as a publicity stunt, which could be used to further expand the topic with details gathered from independent secondary analysis. (Also, since when ''"it's not in use"'' has been a criterion for determining whether a topic is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WHENSPLIT)