Brickipedia:Articles for Deletion

Forums: Index →

Administrators' noticeboard

→ Articles for Deletion

This forum is where nominations for pages in need of deletion can be placed. To leave a nomination, please add a new section with with the name of the article in question as the title. Also, please leave {{delete}} on the nominated page.

Before proposing an article for deletion, consider marking it with a maintenance tag instead or propose an article merger.

Note: "Vandal pages" should be marked with {{Speedydelete}} and do not need to be discussed here.

Ark of the Covenant

Delete

1. Though it's important to the storyline, it's just another feature for the set. I don't think it really deserves its own page. --Alphateam7911 21:27, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
2. I dont see the point of having all these extra pages about parts of the sets. This should go on the page of whatever set it is included inUser:Mackmoron11/sig
3. Per Mackmoron11 NovaHawk 22:57, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Mackmoron11. Construction Worker Do you need help? 22:09, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
5. Per above. Ajraddatz _Talk 16:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
6. I say delete unless you are going to make pages like the holy grail and stuff--User:Joeman200/sig 05:24, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1. That is part of a set and a major part of the story. Why delete it? User:CloneComanderCody/sig 11:39 January 3, 2010 (UTC)
2. --User:Coupon11/sig 16:44, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
3. per CloneComanderCody. -Nerfblasterpro: It's Nerf, or Nothing! 22:55, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
4. per CloneCommanderCody as well.--User:Legoguy1866/siggy 13:14, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
5. Per BF2.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 02:37, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
6. It's an article-its the main part of Indiana Jones 1-It is gold-and it is better than nothing.User:BobaFett2/sig2
7. I like the article--Brickboymaker 15:35, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

* At any rate, this page needs an "Appearances" section if it's even going to be considered for keeping. NovaHawk 22:46, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

LEGO Star Wars: The Video Game (Gameboy Advance)

• Please see here. NovaHawk 23:07, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

729, 730, 731, 732, 757, 758, 759, 760

729 Piano, 730 Plane, 731 Boat, 732 Train, 757 People, 758 Vehicles, 759 Building, 760 Vehicles have all been marked for deletion by User:Gladiatoring. The reason produced on all eight is:

Continental European glued display models produced at the Model Shop in Billund Denmark can be found in a yellow catalog (1958-59) or a blue catalog (1960-61), which were distributed to retailers. This model is from the Blue catalog and is not a LEGO set

Delete

1. Gladiatoring (As nominator)
2. NovaHawk 04:52, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
3. I hate to lose articles, but these need to be deleted :( Ajraddatz _Talk 16:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1. I'm not quite sure why these are marked for deletion... Construction Worker Do you need help? 21:48, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with glue, models and coloured catalogues Kingcjc 21:58, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand and frankly I'm just to lazy to read it. Construction Worker Do you need help? 22:06, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Basicly, they are glued together for shops Kingcjc 23:41, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Aaaah, ok. But technically they're still LEGO, so they should be kept. Construction Worker Do you need help? 00:40, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

What is a yellow and blue catalogue? Kingcjc 21:39, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

The reasons given for deletion pretty much explain why I marked them so, What is your question ? These series of numbered sets here on Brickipedia are not Lego sets the pictures come from a catalog produced in 1960-61. The models themselves were built at the Model Shop in Billund Denmark and distributed to retailers for display purposes. They were not available for sale, They are not LEGO sets neither then nor now. If you are to add models made at the Model Shop in Billund Denmark then you should be adding all the models at the Legoland park in Billund also as many of these are made in the same shop in the same way. The reason I gave explained the why they should be deleted. I don't understand what part of it is not clear to either of you. Just so theres no mistake once again . All the numbers I listed for deletion are pictures of Continental European glued display models produced at the Model Shop in Billund Denmark. They all can be found in a yellow catalog (1958-59) or a blue catalog (1960-61), which were distributed to retailers. The retailers would then put the models on display to showcase what you could do with LEGO. They were not offered for sale and they were not LEGO sets. Just in case its the way I spelt catalog instead of catalogue, well this is the correct way to spell it through out the English speaking world except the USA where they like to change the spelling of words to make them their own. One more thing why would you vote to keep the numbered models if you don't understand ? Gladiatoring 16:49, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I said what are yellow and blue catalogues. I know what catalogues are, I can read English and im not American. Catalogues of normal sets are always handed to retailers, just saying yellow and blue catalogues were given out does not help me understand what they are. Also I havent voted yet....Kingcjc 17:13, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Once again then ; All the numbers I listed for deletion are pictures of Continental European glued display models produced at the Model Shop in Billund Denmark. They all can be found in a yellow catalog (1958-59) or a blue catalog (1960-61). These catalogs were given to retailers who could then order which glued models they wanted for display purposes. I would have guessed that " glued display models " gave it away. The catalogs were either yellow or blue in color . A little history for you. LEGO sets that were produced in the 1950s did not have instructions but rather they had (sometimes) sheets of paper of models you could make from the contents, or more often then not the pictures were on the box on the inside lid or bottom. Most of the time the models shown could not be built from the one set and you had to by a series of sets, this was the case for example of all LEGO Mursten sets. LEGO also set up displays where ever they could these displays were examples of what you could build using LEGO. The models were produced at the Model Shop in Billund Denmark. Instead of LEGO sending out a huge amount of models to every retailer they may have had, they sent catalogs with models that they pre-built and ready to be shipped out for display purpose. Two examples of these catalogs are commonly known as the Blue catalog and the Yellow catalog. The printed examples in the catalogs of the Blue catalog all had Blue backgrounds and the models were black and white photos (likewise for the Yellow catalog). here is an example of the Blue catalog http://www.redshift.com/~shifflett/lego/blue_form/blue_form.html This may be a bad example of the Blue catalog as David has noted it as an ideas book which it was not, as I have outlined here. you will notice # 757 which is the Lego Mascot from 1960 onward, This particular model was sent to all retailers who ordered display models at the time. None of the models have ever been available as LEGO sets , they were all display models, they were not offered for sale through LEGO although it is possible retailers may have sold them, but as far as I am aware the models were not purchased by the retailers and may have been returned to LEGO Billund in due course. Regarding the voting, I obviously can see you have not voted so the question was not directed toward you. Gladiatoring 17:55, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

If you want them deleted, I suggest you vote so :). Kingcjc 22:09, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Fambaa

Delete

1. From what I can remember, it appears for a split second in a cutscene of LSW1. NovaHawk 00:01, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Nighthawk Leader. Construction Worker Do you need help? 00:36, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
3. Per CW Kingcjc 00:42, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Nighthawk leader.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 02:39, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

It is seen in LSW1 in the actual gameplay. User:CaptainJag/sig1 19:31, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

If you provide an image I will believe you. Construction Worker Do you need help? 21:46, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, l'll try to get an image. User:CaptainJag/sig1 19:00, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Bone Hunters

A page about one bionicle species, with one character, from one set. really needed?

Delete

1. Kingcjc 01:13, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
2. User:Samdo994/sig2 17:34, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
3. Construction Worker Do you need help? 16:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
4. If there's only one set including this sepcies, then delete NovaHawk 23:43, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1. They are important to the BIONICLE story. It should be kept.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 02:40, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

If it was for a species with more than one in then okay, but its a paragraph, its says their is only one of them, and since BIONICLE is end(ing/ed) then their wont be more. Its probably covered at the bionicle wiki and can easily be movied into Fero's article Kingcjc 10:32, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

If we would keep this, we would have kept Bara Magna and Mata Nui (Island) too. User:Samdo994/sig2 17:34, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Tactical Droid

Delete

1. There is no source, and I think that over at Eurobricks they have pretty much proven that it does not exist, it was only listed in a preliminary version of the 8098 box. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 02:32, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Capt. Rex.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 02:39, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
3. I blew up the picture Nighthawk provided, and it turns out only to be a battle droid. User:Mariofighter3/sig2

Keep

1. Source (already mentioned on the Turbo Tank) NovaHawk 02:45, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
2. i think there is --Clone Commander Fox 15:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
3. Ajraddatz _Talk 15:33, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
4. It may show a picture of a battle droid, but it says, "Tactical Droid". If that's not a source, I don't know what is. Construction Worker Do you need help? 16:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
5. I believe it should be kept, as long as it has the future release template. --User:Darthch/sig 11:52, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
6. Keep you have other minifigs so why not?--User:Joeman200/sig 05:25, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
7. Keep, If it is proved to be non-existent when the Clone Turbo Tanke comes out you can delete it. User:CaptainJag/sig1 20:07, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• @NHL: I'm not saying that there is no chance of that being a minifig, I was just thinking that because it was listed on the prelim box and the absence of it alone at the NYTF only reinforces my belief of that. If anything, what I said could be taken as maybe to wait a little longer an see it it really is an upcoming minifig as we should get official pics not too long from now. (But I could be wrong :D) User:Cpatain Rex/sig 02:52, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright, I got outvoted. If there are no more votes/comments, can I remove this nom/listing? User:Cpatain Rex/sig 06:04, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • It's still 3/4, so it's pretty divided, so if you still want it to go on, feel free to leave it. I know that the droid never appeared at the Toy Fair, and as Mariofighter3 said, it is a Battle Droid, but prelim box art does usually show another figure as a placeholder (example) (I'm pretty sure 2009 placeholders were all Battle Droids, but I'm not entirely sure). But, maybe we should more clearly mention that its name has appeared only on prelim box art and may not appear in the final set? NovaHawk 11:18, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
• StarWars.com has also listed the Tactical Droid in the minifigures list here, but still doesn't appear in the picture. NovaHawk 06:12, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

• So is this decided? User:CaptainJag/sig1 03:06, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Diagon Alley

As of now we know diagon alley is in a set and probably the game. But the article explains nothings, misses out an appearance and uses a minifigure template. If Diagon is a hub or something in the game, then ok, but at the moment i dont see it as article worthy. (unless we bring back all the bionicle locations >_>) Kingcjc 22:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete

1. Kingcjc 22:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
2. There have been three Diagon Alley-based sets, but I don't see a need to have an article on the Alley itself NovaHawk 00:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
3. Per cjc and Nighthawk. Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:37, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

Diagon Alley is a vital part of not only Harry Potter, but Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4 as well. I have also expanded the article, and I think we should keep it due to it not only being the Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4 hub, but also a vital part of the story line. Quickbuild2345 20:39, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

List of Clone brands

Delete

1. Do we really need to be listed other LEGO-like products? NovaHawk 03:05, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
2. Here's a hint: This is a LEGO wiki. =P Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:39, March 2, 2010 (UTC)