Talk:Rebrickable/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: NewAccount7295 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @NewAccount7295:! I'm a huge fan of reading new GAs and loved your article for Lego Life. I think I've heard of Rebrickable before, so this should be a fun review 😄 Johnson524 08:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 Quite a bit of work already went into the article, and in my opinion it can probably be passed quickly. Read Talk:Rebrickable#Notes for GA review if you haven't already and tell me your opinions on the article. Thanks for taking the review! NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Preliminary review

@NewAccount7295: Sorry for the delay in reviewing this nom, but I'm having a lot of trouble on seeing the notability of the topic through the sources present, raising WP:SIGCOV concerns. A rule of thumb I follow when reviewing articles is WP:THREE, which essentially states that three good sources (i.e. non-primary, neutral, and in-depth) that provide non-trivial coverage of a subject is almost-always the bare minimum for notability. Going through each source:

•  1 What it's like to be a Lego widow (non-significant coverage)
•  2 How We Can All Be Like Lego Master Builders (fantastic source!)
• 3 The 10 Best LEGO Sets for Alternative Builds (I'd argue non-significant coverage as the primary topic of the article is alternative builds, but Rebrickable does have a lot of mentions. Could be passable if really needed.)
•  4 Rebrickable Website Helps You Combine Your LEGO Sets To Build New Things (non-neutral advertisement, sourced from a blog linked at the bottom of the page)
•  5 Lego creations (non-neutral advertisement)
•  6 How Lego bricks went from five colors to nearly 200 (non-significant coverage)
•  7 One Man's Epic Quest to Build a 20,000-Piece LEGO Star Destroyer (non-significant coverage)
•  8 Brickognize: Applying Photo-Realistic Image Synthesis for Lego Bricks Recognition with Limited Data (almost entirely unrelated)
•   The rest of the sources are primary, which are well-separated and used appropriately, but don't count towards SIGCOV.

If more good sources aren't available to meet WP:THREE, I will unfortunately have to fail this nomination. I know this isn't much consolation, but an excellent example on what an article made entirely of sources that don't meet WP:THREE can be seen at Draft:Durrr Burger, which I wrote and nominated for GA sometime back, but got draftified for nearly identical concerns. If additional good sources can be found, the nomination can proceed. Johnson524 21:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 If you feel the article is not notable, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion so we can discuss the sourcing there and hear the opinions of other editors. I'd argue it is a subject of "borderline" notability. NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295: I really hate deleting articles and would rather draftify when possible. This way, if more sources are found, the progress already made on the article isn't lost to deletion. However, if you'd rather bring it to AfD, we can do that. Johnson524 21:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 Despite the name, AFD isn't necessarily for deleting articles, as it is now used or mergers as well. I do believe it is the best venue to discuss this. The nomination can just be placed on hold in the meantime. NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

An AfD has been started. Johnson524 23:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 The AFD has been closed as keep, with the consensus at the time being that the article is notable. I believe we can continue with the review now. NewAccount7295 (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)