Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUGNET

LUGNET

[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)

The website appears unnotable or "one of many". The LATimes article, penned by a "freelance journalist", appears to be the only thing close to significant coverage, but the other sources currently used only name-drop the site (WP:PASSING). A short WP:BEFORE, including on Newspapers.com, show little additional information that could be sourced here. IceWelder [✉] 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2006-11 BZPower ✗ delete

That PROD was 12 years ago by a different user, though. IceWelder [✉] 07:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 07:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 07:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Lego Users Group Network: Barely found any online article about the community, but it has received some coverage from books using the name Lego Users Group Network. I also found some reliable books which talk about it: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Superastig, I don't have access to most of these books. Could you verify whether the content justifies keeping the article? In some of the abstracts, it appears that there are just passing mentions of website, á la "there is also LUGNET". In the best case, the article could already be improved using these sources. IceWelder [✉] 11:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - IceWelder, it's best to use "Lego Users Group Network" in searching for any info about it rather than "LUGNET". Like I said, it has received some coverage from books, even in scholar. NONE of the sources I indicated are passing mentions since there are parts where it's talked about, whether fully or briefly. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has been considerable scholarly research into why LEGO fans are so fervent, why they are excellent brand ambassadors, and how their relationship with The LEGO Group has deepened and strengthened over time. For example: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/collaborating-with-customer-communities-lessons-from-the-lego-group/ ... That article is an outgrowth of doctoral research carried out by Dr. Yun Mi Antorini, and much of her research focused on the unique role that LUGNet (to use the preferred capitalization, chosen to emphasize it stands for LEGO Users Group Network) played in this. LUGNet was not "one of many", it was THE place to come and discuss any and all LEGO related topics 2 decades ago. That has changed, and the site is now dormant, but it's of historical interest, and it's notable. Full disclosure, I was user #5 and I'm cited in the research I reference. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]