Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego tire

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 merge to Lego. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lego tire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few years ago LEGO made a press release that they produce more toy tires than car companies make real tiers, wich got the brick an entry into the Guiness book of records ([1]) and was reported in few news outlets (which just rewrote/reword the cited press release). But WP:NOTNEWS and outside this one factoid there is nothing going for this component, the coverage of its and any significance is related to this one single fact. I don't think it's enough to warrant this topic getting a stand-alone article (as it seems to fail WP:GNG). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge For what it describes, could be a subsection in the main Lego bricks article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surely holding a Guinness world record makes the subject notable? SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SailingInABathTub, Please see the comment below by JPL. I concur that the Guinness world record does not grant auto-notability, due to a relatively low bar for inclusion (see their official guidelines here) and trivial categories ([2]: "Farhaan Shoaib, 12, sets a Guinness World Record for “Most bounces of a soap bubble on a soap film”...), but at the same time, I can't find past discussions of this outside the tiny one here. A search of past AfDs ([3]) suggest I am right, however: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu Chao (Guinness World Records), for example. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I agree with Oaktree - the little bit of coverage and information this factoid got probably makes it worth a mention on the main Lego article, but certainly not enough to validate having an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Holding a Guiness Book of World Records "record" in no way makes anything notable. It is a low research promotional activity aimed at accuing useless trivia people like to spout when drunk, inclusion is not anywhere close to showing notability, and if you consider how the inclusion happened in this case, including the entry would make us complicit in churnalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "accuing"? What is "churnalism"? How do these words aid understanding? I suggest you consider revision of your comment to make it understandable. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete in the nomination, just some rambling WP:NOTCLEANUP. And the topic is notable, of course. Apart from the world record, there's detailed technical coverage in sources such as this. Note also the absurdity of creating a page just for this idle discussion. It's these pages that we don't need. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia would not be Wikipedia without myriad essays dressed up to look like policy pages... been that way for decades and the thicket only increases. But this might not be the place to rail against them ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC) (addendum: that said... the particular page you point to IS policy, and it's a very helpful and valuable page. Editors should keep it in mind before contemplating creating new pages... ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete Clear GNG failure. Not opposed to a merge but this is not notable enough for its own article. SK2242 (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge That LEGO make more tyres than the biggest tyre manufacturer, is an interesting bit of trivia but I'm not seeing the need for an entire article, and the current article seems like a bit of a mish-mash... merging it into the main LEGO article seems like a good approach. Not convinced that this bit of clever marketing fails GNG though. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly fails the notability requirement as presented in the nomination, weak arguments in favour to keep it notwithstanding. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge We don't need an article just to compare the production totals. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oaktree b above. Interesting fact, but not an article in its own right. Llwyld (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge- interesting factoid, but single factoids don't necessarily warrant a whole article to themselves, especially not when there's an obvious merge candidate. Reyk _YO! 11:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.