Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable game. First AFD closed with no discussion whatsoever. It is almost one month since I created that AFD and hope for more discussion this time around. Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. The admin that closed the first AFD has closed a lot of discussions even though no one !voted which is definately not what an admin should do. Joe Chill (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete What is this? The AfD that time forgot? No referenced notability... Jujutacular talkcontribs 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - since this is a pretty old game, most evidence of notability would be offline. Milton Bradley is obviously notable, so though notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, I think the presumption here should be for inclusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Make that strong keep -- just found a Google Book referring to it favorably. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Make that really strong keep -- this game was responsible for the creation of Parker Brothers.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Strike that -- Parker's Banking does not appear to be the same as this one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So is this a Keep or delete? Can you please clarify? Thanks!-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just struck my third comment -- the first two still stand, so keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying!-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Strong Keep: I have heard of it! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is obviously notable! Thats what! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How does I have heard of it! show notability? Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell? It seems like you're trolling this AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Let's Chill, Joe. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I have heard of it and believe it to be notable. Please do not remove my Strong Keep. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave it be. It does no harm as the closing admin will probably not see this as a valid reason to keep and it will probably just be disregarded.-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 19:20, 13 August 2009 (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.