Talk:Rebrickable

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that users on Rebrickable design their own Lego sets and sell instructions for them?

• Source: Multiple; check secondary sources on article

• • Reviewed: [[]]
  • Comment: Users may review the article and give their opinions on it, but I've gone ahead and nominated this for now. If the hook isn't suitable we could think of another one.

Moved to mainspace by NewAccount7295 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC).

• New enough, just long enough, overly cited if anything. No QPQ needed. GTG! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Please add an icon to indicate whether you're passing this or not. I wouldn't, but you're the reviewer.--Launchballer 12:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Notes for GA review

I believe this article meets the GA criteria as it is reasonably complete (even if it is a bit short), is illustrated by two images, and all parts of it are sourced except for the lead section, which only repeats information already found in the article. The article summarizes information available from the sources without going into too much detail.

While the article does contain six primary sources, I consider them to be reliable. One of them is an interview from Brickset (the authors on the website are subject-matter experts), and rest are from Rebrickable.

The Rebrickable blog is reliable for use in this article since it is written by Nathan Thom himself regarding information about his own website. One other primary citation in the article is simply the website's homepage. This is used for information about the number of creations and users on the website, which can be seen at the very bottom. Popular Mechanics noted there were 15,000 creations in 2020, which is recorded in the article, but that number is now outdated, so it is best to also include to the primary source for current information. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rebrickable/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)