Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego The Lord of the Rings

:{{la|Lego The Lord of the Rings}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Lego The Lord of the Rings}})

Violation of WP:NOT, namely "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors"... "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate".
The less said about the "references" (a bunch of fandom blog-style sites) the better. I have found official press-releases from Lego easily enough but that's not enough to justify an article about playsets which won't be released for months. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 08:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Week keep: I found several references: [http://collider.com/lord-of-the-rings-hobbit-lego/132790/], [http://www.gamedynamo.com/article/showarticle/2613/es/LEGO_The_Lord_of_the_Rings_llegar_en_verano_de_2012_no_han_confirmado_los_videojuegos_an], [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/12/16/lego-lord-of-the-rings-sets-coming-this-summer.aspx], which is quite good for a product with release date "Summer 2012"; though I can't judge on reliability here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

::The first two are simply a requote of the Lego press release (i.e. routine coverage) and the third contains a link to the press release whilst speculating about possible video games releases. Personally, I would not consider the sites reliable sources either (although that point could be argued). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

:::OK. Though right now WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies, deletion seems impractical, as we have the release date and there is realistic hope of developing a decent-sized article as Lego generally receives some independent coverage. I would suggest following the established precedent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: I believe there is a link to the official website of Lego to Lego The Lord of The Rings on the article. It is also here: [http://thelordoftherings.lego.com/en-us/default.aspx]. Also, since the product will be released soon, the article will be remade if it is deleted, so why delete it in the first place?--Streona (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

:The article would only be suitable for recreation if there were multiple, independent references from reliable sources demonstrating notability and there was realistic hope of developing a decent-sized article (WP:PRODUCT). As it stands, WP:CRYSTAL applies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

::I believe that there would be realistic hope of expanding the article once the product is released. However, I think that the official Lego website showing Lego The Lord of The Rings is suitable for the time being.--Streona (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per czarkoff; look at the template we have for Lego, this certainly needs coverage. Only coming by since this AfD is ANCIENT.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - sources currently available seem to show enough notability, but likely in less than a month this will be indisputable. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:59, 14 March 2012 (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.