Deletion of List of Easter eggs in Tesla products

Comment: I would say that this falls somewhere between  and . Specifically, it's the "products -> activation -> description" that doesn't sit right with me. I've no doubt that the concept of Tesla easter eggs is notable, but there should be an article, or a section in an article, that is more about how Tesla began incorporating Easter eggs into their car models, why the ones are chosen as they are, rather than a list that's really a step above up up down down left right left right B A start. Even if a list like this were to occur, I don't see a downside in ing, considering how 1. trivia laden it is and 2. the flattering portrait of Elon Musk that it paints. In particular, the second section of "Notable omissions" is really just "a list of things Elon Musk likes", with a side of "see! He was praised in ''Star Trek
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDATABASE||WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:TNT)

Comment: With well over 100 references to news articles, the topic is dense with primary sources and has undeniable notability.  None of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy|reasons for deletion apply to this article to any significant degree. While the article is not perfect, existing imperfections warrant improvement through editing as opposed to unilateral deletion.  This article is the only existing resource for a full and near comprehensive treatment of the article topic.  Deleting this article would go against Wikipedia's purpose (to benefit readers with free information on all branches of knowledge) by eliminating that knowledge for approximately https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=List_of_Easter_eggs_in_Tesla_products 450 people per day.  There is precedent for this type of article including List of Easter eggs in Microsoft products and List of Google Easter eggs.  Neither of these lists of easter eggs are currently being considered for deletion.  Finally, it may be useful to know that I already plan to refresh the article (I am the original author) before the end of this year.  For example, I agree with Kncny11 that the Products/Activation/Description format is not the best.  I intend to get rid of that completely.  In general, the article could use some futureproofing.  Language and information that can become obsolete will be removed.  Nevertheless, these are aspects of editing and improving, rather than grounds for complete deletion.Reply to points from Kncny11:"I would say that this falls somewhere between  and . Specifically, it's the "products -> activation -> description" that doesn't sit right with me."While I disagree with your assessment that this article is something between a indiscriminate collection of information, or a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, I can see that the format makes it feel this way a bit.  I intend to move more towards the format of other lists of easter eggs as discussed above (Google and Microsoft).  In particular, I will remove the products -> activation -> description structure. Just need some time to make the edits."I've no doubt that the concept of Tesla easter eggs is notable, but there should be an article, or a section in an article, that is more about how Tesla began incorporating Easter eggs into their car models, why the ones are chosen as they are, rather than a list that's really a step above up up down down left right left right B A start."I would encourage you to add such a section (with references) to this article!   Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instructs that "the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text".  This article is rich with notable, well cited information that is clearly of interest to people.  It should not be lost."Even if a list like this were to occur, I don't see a downside in ing, considering how 1. trivia laden it is and 2. the flattering portrait of Elon Musk that it paints. In particular, the second section of "Notable omissions" is really just "a list of things Elon Musk likes", with a side of "see! He was praised in ''Star Trek''!""All that you refer to is referenced to notable primary sources.  But if you think it is biased or could be better, please make additions/edits and include citations.  If there are specific issues you would like to discuss, happy to do that too, but specific small issues in an article are not grounds for complete deletion.  The problem with "blow it up and start over" is, who will start over?  If given until the end of 2021, I plan to start from the existing rigorously cited text, improve the format, and futureproof by removing anything that can change with software updates or new products.  I think this is a better option as compared to ing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDATABASE||WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:TNT||WP:TNT)

Comment: Easily passes .  The nomination is just a mix of  and .  See also 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:MAD)

Comment: I don't doubt that it is notable. It's just that this is content that falls under  IMO. My nomination vote isn't a proper '''delete''', I respect that (some of) this content is '''merge'''able, maybe a worthy mention in respective articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)