Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego Monster Fighters

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. No substantial sources have been provided demonstrating notability of this particular set. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Monster Fighters

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Wikipedia is not a toy catalog. Don't see any evidence this particular set of Legos is more notable than the other several dozens of sets Lego puts out every year. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - agree the article isn't in good shape but it's modelled on other Lego themes like Lego Ninjago and Lego Star Wars (even the formatting is consistent). We're not talking about a page for individual sets - it's a specific theme (collection of sets) and, though I've only done a quick search, there is likely to be coverage of the collection in its own right, as there is of the other collections:

Brick-or-Treat! LEGOLAND joins in on Halloween fun this October - about events themed around the new collection.
Kids win dream job testing toys - article with passing mention (included because I wanted to highlight the fact that it is referred to as a group, distinct from a specific set), not a good reference, just FYI.
2012 LEGO sets: LEGO Monster Fighters - a blog (so not a great reference) but a review which groups them as a recognised set.
LEGO Haunted House Set - Geekalerts.com review. Not sure about its reliability as a source but thought I would include it.

Am happy to have a look for some more if you would like but I've added the general Lego navbox to the article to give it some context. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You identify three of those four as no good for establishing notability so I checked the first one. It is also worthless as a source. It is a pure puff piece blatantly cobbled together from an amusement parks own press releases and has no discussion whatsoever about this lego set, just mentions it in passing as being part of the theme for Halloween events. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely - my point was more that I thought there had been a misunderstanding about the distinction between a "set" (single box) and a "collection" (themed collection of sets) and gave a few links to look at to help make that distinction. If there is a contention that the themes themselves should not have individual articles then we should probably broaden the discussion. Each other collection / theme has fewer or less reliable references than this one. Sorry - I probably could have worded my intro of those links better - my suggestion was more along the lines that there is generally the same coverage of this collection as there is of the others, eg. not much. Without getting into an WP:ALLORNOTHING situation, I think we need to be conscious of precedent. My position is more Keep, but - the but being that I think there could be a case for considering them all. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I at least get what you driving at now but I don't believe it is relevant. If a subject has not been the focus of significant discussion in reliable sources we should not have an artile on it. That precedent is already well established and reflected in multiple policies. If I correctly understand what you are saying, this article is but one of many in a walled garden environment where standards for a Wikipedia article are not being respected and it is in fact being treated as a toy catalog. I find that troubling, but I did not and do not intend for this AFD to be a general discussion of Lego articles, just this one. If a consensus to delete it emerges it may indeed be time for a broader discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely fair enough. On that basis, I might amend my position to Comment so that the discussion/consensus-building can continue with regard to this article in particular, with the above as a side-note. Happy to help with the others if you go down that path - feel free to get in touch if you do. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - It certainly needs a whole lot of work, more work than it is worth. I say yes to deletion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Needing a lot of work is not a reason for deletion, but for doing the work. Thedistinction between a set and a collection is valid. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that needing work is not a reason to deelte. However not being particularly notable is. I have yet to see a single independent source that discusses this collection in any but the most trivial matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP is not a sales catalog!!! I agree, too, that needing work is not a reason to delete, but in fact, we will have a lot of work in AFD discussions clearing out is this or that item (bread) or a list of items (bread'n'butter'n'salt) of a great importance (notable) or not. And according to that we will generate a great independent second level source for citing! MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Apart the reason of keeping it along with the pages of other Lego themes, I think this theme is an interesting example of how horror and gothic (albeit in a pop version) play an important part of English-speaking countries culture. Also, see the note at Lego Wikia that links this theme to a movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaldoni (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Abaldoni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As an inexperienced user (two edits two or three years ago, then suddenly back to participate in this AFD) you may not be aware that this is not a discussion of how we feel about this particular lego set/theme/whatever, but rather a discussion of wether it has been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources. If you could find some of those to support your opinions your argument would carry much more weight. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your arguments, and definitely think that I won't be able to find any source supporting my feelings about this set (original research?). However, I'd like to better understand the reasons of deleting this article and keeping, for instance, this one Lego Dino Attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaldoni (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't have that one either, this was simply the first of these articles to come to my attention. Depending on the result here I may be pursuing a more comprehensive solution to this whole family of articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this may be too general a point for this discussion...if so, sorry! But the underlying logic pretty much applies to all the Lego product lines and many other game related materials. Consider a very narrow, special interest issue that is of relevance to only twenty scientist in the whole world - who regularly publish on the subject in learned journals. By contrast, there may be a product which millions of people buy but which is not well covered by any independent secondary source in writing (e.g. there are no doubt more journals dedicated to obscure literary criticism than to the toy market). Does that really make the first type of subject more relevant for an encyclopedia than the second? It certainly makes it easier to cover, as there are lots of ready-made references. But shouldn't the decision regarding which pages are worth keeping and working on (i.e. trying to find these reliable sources) be based to a certain extent on some notion of "popularity" or "general interest"? Drow69 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idon't believe there is a legitimate general interest in articles about every theme Lego ever came up with. "Lego made some sets, they looked liked monsters and people who fight monsters" is pretty much all this article says. The reason that is all it says is that there actually isn't anything more to say. By having articles on every theme, set, etc that Lego does Wikipedia is basically serving as an extension of Lego's marketing department, not sharing important knowledge with the world. In any case, no, we don't exempt toys from the requirement that article subjects have been covered by independent reliable sources. Since we have yet to see a single one of those for this subject I don't see how we have any choice but to delete this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Lego collectors have their own wikis. But the reference to the Dino Attack line made above is valid. Why keep one and delete the other? Drow69 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can finally agree with Beeblebrox's comments. These Lego themes pages can be merged in the Lego page or into a new Lego Bricks Themes page (also by removing the product codes) and links to the most used Lego 'archive' sites added to that page as well (ie, Brickset, Brickfactory). A redirection can be provided too (Lego Dino → Lego). --Abaldoni (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, there already IS a List of Lego themes page...--Abaldoni (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2012 (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.