Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego The Powerpuff Girls

Lego The Powerpuff Girls

 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn because the article has been improved. (non-admin closure) Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I tried PRODing the article but it was removed. In my proposed deletion of the article I wrote "Only sources are Lego blogs. Is a non notable Lego theme (only a couple of sets). It should be deleted or merged to another page." Adding to my previous points: There has only been two Lego Powerpuff Girls sets: 41287 Bubbles' Playground Showdown and 41288 Mojo Jojo Strikes (Source). The Lego Dimensions sets do not count towards the theme (71343 The Powerpuff Girls Buttercup Fun Pack and 71346 The Powerpuff Girls Team Pack) because they are not part of the theme.Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Brick Fanatics, BrickEconomy, thebrickfan.com, Brickset, Brickfanz, ToyNews, etc are all blog sites and should be removed. www.lego.com and warnerbros are primary sources. The only good source I can see is the Variety source but it does not even mention Powerpuff girls. Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC) I’m surprised this article has not been deleted sooner, probably because it has been WP:REFBOMBED. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no reason to delete this page because it had to be rewrite or clean up and takes a lot of work to find more sources. It has also received media coverage in terms of its character, sets and video game to warrant a standalone article. Lego Dimensions can be related to the theme for example Lego Jurassic World (theme) and Lego Ninjago. This page can not be merged see Talk:The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series) because it's already closed. I will continue search more sources and update this page. Striker2020 (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are two or three decent references to justify notability, such as the Forbes reference (19). Fieryninja (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fieryninja. While the article has a lot of bad references, there are enough quality ones to pass GNG. The solution is to trim and remove poorly sourced content and inappropriate references, not deletion.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.