Brickipedia:Articles for Deletion

Articles for Scrap - Proposed Mergers - Proposed Splits

Overview Articles for Scrap is where nominations for pages in need of deletion can be placed. 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. If you are unsure whether a page should be speedy deleted or not, then nominate it for deletion here and an Administrator will see if it is worth of speedy deletion.

Instructions for use To leave a nomination, click here and replace Article Name with the name of the article that you think should be deleted. Under the Delete header, type the reason why you think the article should be deleted, and then sign your name with ~~~~. Also, please leave {{delete}} on the nominated page. Voting will take place for two weeks to determine if the page should be deleted.

Category:Explore Parts

Delete

1. This category has little pages and basically, the Explore parts are DUPLO parts, although Explore is not a subtheme of it.  Samdo994 talk contribs  15:26, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
2. They are DUPLO parts , you dont seperate for example other themes into theme x part because it uses TECHNIC parts. Gladiatoring 16:15, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
3. Only if they're all definitely DUPLO parts NightblazeSaber 08:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1. I see no reason to delete it. ajr 23:46, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
2. Wow, this hasn't been closed yet? -Mariofighter3: Open your Heart! 02:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. Surely, it has little pages as not all pages are made yet. Kingcjc 19:59, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
2. The parts used are all DUPLO parts, there are no Explore parts Gladiatoring 14:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Martian Hive

Not needed, can be merged with Mars Mission.  Samdo994 talk contribs  12:01, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete

1.  Samdo994 talk contribs  12:01, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
2. Or merge to Mars Mission or CrystAlien Conflict. Doesn't appear in a set or anything, only relevant to the theme's storyline and the online game. NightblazeSaber 05:09, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
3. Gladiatoring 07:35, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1. Why delete it? ajr 02:25, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
2. I agree with Ajraddatz. --User:NOBODY in...Squidy Jones: And the Dollar Bill of Doom - "Who doesn't love money?" 13:13, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
3. Just update it and it can be kept. GG 360One Year on Brickipedia 13:01, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I agree with Samdo. Lets just merge it. Danjam 09:48, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Merge into crystalien whatever, or give it an expansion and cleanup ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 14:48, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

btw this belongs in Brickipedia:Proposed Mergers. ajr 18:12, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Accessory Sets

Delete

1. Basically contained anything that was a key chain or pen. Just don't think we need another category for these. NightblazeSaber 10:12, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
2. There are Train accessories, System i Leg accessories, and they are obvious to what they contain, but Accessory sets , for key chains or pens? Key Chains are part of the super category Collectables and Merchandise, and Pens a part of LEGO Writing and in the super cat Office & School Supplies. I don't think they need to be further categorised than what they are already. —Unsigned comment by Gladiatoring (talk • contribs). 10:55, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  22:18, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

1. Duplicate category.  Samdo994 talk contribs  16:18, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1. I think it should be kept, because we will have a super category of accessories with magnets, pens, pencils, and key chains.--LEGOCityManiac11 10:19, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
2. Some use. ajr 22:11, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
3. It is useful, though I'd recommend changing to Accessories.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  18:47, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

1. We already have Category:Accessory NightblazeSaber 22:18, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• this is not needed at all! Tahu97 18:19, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Atlantis warrior

Delete

1. We have Category:Atlantis minifigure, and we don't split other themed minifigures by faction. If we do this, we'd need "Category:Galactic Empire minifigure", etc which could get messy very quickly. NightblazeSaber 06:11, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
2. Gladiatoring 07:22, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
3.  Samdo994 talk contribs  11:50, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  11:59, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

1. Not needed ajr 18:30, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
2. ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 18:36, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Need to empty cat first so that it doesn't get remade.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  20:29, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

My bot is currently in the process of doing that. ajr 22:07, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Named Minifigues

Delete

1. Gladiatoring 21:30, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
2. Can't see a point to having it- the theme either has named minifigures, or it doesn't. why not just look up a theme, or put the minifigure theme cats into a "named minifigures" cat if it's that big a deal? NightblazeSaber 06:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

   Lots of themes have both named AND unnamed minifigures.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  11:33, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

1. After I have seen some edits to Kranxx, Frenzy and Jawson, nearly every minifigure should be named then. So it's unneeded.  Samdo994 talk contribs  12:25, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

What about the Space Police Officers? They aren't really "Named"

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  12:49, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

We would rather need a category called "unnamed minifigures". :P  Samdo994 talk contribs  16:18, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

And, is there anything wrong with adding articles?

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  16:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1. Actually useful

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  21:30, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

2. PATahu97 17:39, October 11, 2010 (UTC) I agree with BobaFett2, it is acturally quite useful.--Dominodalek 18:47, October 11, 2010 (UTC)