Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bananagrams


 * 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. John254 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bananagrams

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable game. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This game is gaining popularity. Four of my good friends independantly mentioned this game to me.  It is sold at reputable and popular locations, such as Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one vote from the person who created the article. :) Now for some impartial votes that address the game's lack of notability. Rob Banzai (talk)
 * But that's just it -- the game is notable.  DRosenbach 

( Talk 02:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep. Being sold at high-end toy stores is an indication of notability, but not proof of it.  The article needs some independent sources...however, I think they're findable.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stronger keep. they've been found and put in.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like a non-notable Scrabble knockoff to me. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What in the world does being a knock-off have to do with notability? It's not like I'm manufacturing this game in my basement?  It's being sold all over and online and there are numerous independent news outlets that have covered it?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see some of those numerous independent stories. They'll help. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What ever happened to stub articles? Why is this article being attacked on the day it was created for not having every bit of info possible?  Anyone who does a simple Google search will find 111,000 hits.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I can tell you this: Sources help, complaining doesn't. The sources you have added do help greatly (note that a stub still needs to have some verifiability).  And no, this article should not have been hit with an AFD 8 minutes in.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think everything is going well here, and I'm not interested in picking a fight, but that was a cheap shot. Complaining doesn't help?  I'm not a two year old -- I am making a complaint substantiated with what I feel were persuasive assertions.  Why would you suggest that complaints are unwelcome?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being listed on a site such as Amazon.com or BN.com does not establish notability in any way. However, the BN entry lists quite a handful of awards won by this game. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how any of the awards the game has won are notable. It seems like a lot of smaller parent groups gave the game an award. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable ripoffMY♥IN chile  02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Popular, award-winning, sourced game.  Not a ripoff of Scrabble unless you consider any word game (like Upwords) to be a ripoff of Scrabble, though the new game Scrabble Me is very similar to Bananagrams. Edward321 (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The multiple awards given to this game demonstrate notability.  Suggest early WP:SNOW closure.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep well-sourced. I see no reason, given the amount of references and uniqueness described that it should be deleted. Xyz7890 (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2008 (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.