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. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Numbers

[edit]

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

Nevada Numbers has been defunct (removed) since early 2009 (www.nevadanumbers.com)and is no longer offered as a keno wager in Nevada casinos. Las Vegas Gaming, Inc., is in the process of selling their keno and bingo business to a yet unlicensed entity in the State of Nevada so the future of the promotion is uncertain or perhaps doubtful. Nevada requires full licensure of keno manufacturers and operators of linked keno progressives. Suggest deletion until such time as the promotion is back on line, if indeed it ever is.

From LVGI's most recent SEC filed financials, "On March 31, 2009, the Company shut down its Nevada Numbers and Million Dollar Ticket games."

Also from SEC filings, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1103993/000111776809000363/mainbody.htm: "We completed the sale of our bingo business, keno intellectual property, and prac (Promotion marketing software) business to Gaming Arts, LLC (GA) on August 19, 2009, for $1,050,000. GA also executed a Nevada Numbers License Agreement for $50,000 for an exclusive license to operate, grant sublicenses and enforce the Nevada Numbers intellectual property in any non-slot application. In addition, GA received a non-exclusive license to operate, grant one sublicense, and enforce the Nevada Numbers intellectual property in any slot machine application for 50% of the net profits after GA or its sublicensee receives the first $100,000 in net profits. However, since GA has not received the necessary regulatory approval to be a gaming operator, the Company continues to maintain control of these assets and manage them on a day-to-day basis for an indefinite period pending such approvals. The gain on the sale of these assets has been deferred pending such approvals. As a result of significant uncertainty as to the achievement and timing of such regulatory approvals, we are unable to conclude that the disposition of these business assets and activities within one year is probable. Therefore, pursuant to ASC 360-10-45-9, we have not classified such operations of these businesses as discontinued." NRee (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)NRee — NRee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: submitting this in good faith for a non-autoconfirmed user. tedder (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is content that should be added to the article in an appropriate sourced form, not a rationale for deletion. An enterprise that was notable before its failure remais notable after its failure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable company that becomes defunct does not cease to be notable. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always thus. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2010 (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.