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]
    - Brief mentions are equal to passing mentions. When the information does not go beyond that LUGNET existed, it cannot be considered in-depth coverage. At least to of the sources you provided run afoul of this; I don't have access to the others. IceWelder [✉] 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Brief mentions are not necessarily equal to passing mentions. ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 27 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]
- Lar, the source you cite only mentions LUGNET in two sentences. Via ResearchGate:
  We also closely followed adult Lego users on com- munity forums and sites and collected profiles that members uploaded on Lugnet.com, the Lego User Group Network. The forums addressed community membership, Lego hobby activities and tastes and practices related to adult Lego users’ innovations. In total, we amassed 1,016 pages of doubled-spaced text.In addition, we conducted 25 in-depth interviews and several informal inter-views with members of the community, face to face or via email or phone. Face-to-face and phone interviews typically lasted between one and two hours. During the research process, the lead author became a member of the Danish Lego User Group and made presentations and led round-table discussions at North American adult user conventions. Many of the findings presented in this paper have been previously shared with adult users at community events and online forums, thus offering the community opportunities to comment on the findings and conclusions.
  There does not seem to be any significant coverage of LUGNET itself in that source. IceWelder [✉] 17:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the original doctoral dissertation, it's a distillation, created in more modern times, after LUGNet had went essentially dormant. (Current dormancy is not evidence of non-notability, mind you). I can't speculate why Yun Mi cut the original material down. I have the original dissertation here somewhere, as well as the book that resulted. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - also (separated out to let you comment to each section separately) I note that you did not address my refutation of your "one of many" claim. Before LUGNet, there was only rec.toys.lego (or alt.toys.lego before that) ... There are many places NOW, but that was not the case 20 years ago. which is why this site is notable. At one time it was THE place to discuss all things LEGO, the toys, the brand, the company, fan activity, personal creations, all of it. Your "one of many" claim is entirely baseless. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does the original dissertation provide more in-depth information on LUGNET itself? That is the central problem here. Whether it was just one of many or the largest ever is ultimately irrelevant, as would be/have been the largest for a relatively niche community. WP:GNG - we need in-depth coverage about the topic, not a dissertation inspired by some of the topic's content. IceWelder [✉] 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is your best estimate for the size of this "relatively niche" community (the set of all Adult fans of LEGO)? I suggest you're trying to marginalize it, and it's a lot bigger than you think. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point. We need in-depth coverage of the topic, or else the topic cannot stand as its own article. A merge to Lego in popular culture, as EdGl suggested below, seems reasonable. LUGNET can easily be mentioned there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceWelder (talk • contribs)
        You're missing the point. You introduced the argument that it was "one of many" (in your nomination), not I... but it was not "one of many". It has some technical uniqueness as well, being nntp at the core rather than a more modern forum implementation. While no one has written a book solely about LUGNet, (although someone could) there is enough material to put together an article without resorting to first person accounts or synthesis. You need to decide if you want to make the argument there are not enough sources, or if you want to make the argument that it's not notable. You can't have it both ways. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Prompted by the merge suggestion from EdGl (and thanks for that) I went looking for brand community research.

- https://www.linkdex.com/en-us/inked/10-exceptional-examples-of-brand-communities/ .. LUGNet is #7 on that list. There is a paywalled WSJ article linked from it...

- https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204482304574222062946162306 which I surmise (it's paywalled) has this quote "As one Lego spokesman said: “[Lugnet offers] incredibly valuable insights” in hardware, software, design and usability, feedback which informs the brands product development, marketing, and much more."

I think that establishes it's not just "one of many", and further that it has a recognised significance. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to review the WSJ article I referenced, although since it's paywalled I can't give you the text without committing a copyright violatin. I'm comfortable that it establishes that LUGNet was hardly "one of many", although it does not, in and of itself, have enough details about why the site (and the fan community it engendered) was so unique and groundbreaking to support an article all by itself. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lego in popular culture#Online. ~EdGl talk 17:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge to the popular culture article is a poor second choice, because of the influence LUGNet had on LEGO and on brand marketing, and on collaboration with customers... all of that will be lost. But it's better than outright deletion. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can this influence (reliably documented, of course) be added to the article, then? ~EdGl talk 00:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's the issue that it might overpower the rest of the article/section. It also might find a home in brand community or similar. (that lumpiness is not a reason not to do a merge instead of an outright delete if there isn't a keep consensus) ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having browsed the books linked above, it is apparent that there are plenty of sources testifying to this community's importance. It is interesting to note how this volunteer community has gone from being vital to being dormant. Wikipedia has trouble maintaining its vigour too and vexatious nominations like this are part of the problem. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]