Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Cabbie

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. causa sui (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Cabbie

London Cabbie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable board game. I have not

• Keep The game is documented in detail in reliable sources such as the journal Games & Puzzles. Warden (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've asked Colonel W on his talkpage if he can provide a working link so that we can assess the source – although a search for "games & puzzles" "london cabbie" doesn't produce any results at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have fixed the link. Warden (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't seem to contain a single reference to this game, however, so I have to ask what relevance it has here? ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—not a single Google Books result for "london cabbie" "board game" unless anyone can suggest a better search term? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You already told us in the nomination that you couldn't find anything - there's no need to repeat yourself. I have found plenty already and have only just got started. The thing to understand is that this company flourished briefly in the seventies when the internet was still known as the Arpanet. I know my way around the sources of that era and probably have hard copies in my library. Warden (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no need to repeat yourself. No, but there's no rule against it. I have found plenty already – well so far you've deceptively linked to a Google Book which contains nothing relevant whatsoever, so I look forward to seeing more of your efforts. I wonder what you're going to link to next and claim it has content about this game!

  Bradshaw's? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Deception? This is a good example of why it's a waste of time communicating with you. Warden (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Deception? Well, if I'm going to cover all the possibilities it's either deception or rather desperate negligence. You said, "The game is documented in detail in reliable sources such as the journal Games & Puzzles," despite the resource linked not containing a single mention of the game, let alone "detailed documentation" as you stated – or at least as you extremely strongly implied. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 22:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Deceptive use of sources has been uncovered in the past. [1]. Perhaps a page number from the cited book and a quote of the passage here would be useful?

  talk) 21:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I see it was a specialty monthly magazine in the UK that published from '72 to summer '81. Not a book. Apologies. So what's needed is the title of the article (if there is one), specific edition (date and volume), the authors name, sense of the contents, then it could be considered as a useful source (or not).

  talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have added a detailed citation of the relevant issue. Warden (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no indication of substantive third party coverage. The sole potential source given for it is a Google Books hit (not an actual sighting of material -- so no indication of depth of coverage) for Games & Puzzles, a magazine serving the board-gaming community, published by Edu-Games (U.K.), Ltd, London. Given that one of the purposes of such a magazine would be to review games that were new (and thus have gained no notability) and unknown to their readership, that it reviewed an (explicitly geographically local) game does not offer any indication of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Games & Puzzles was distributed throughout the UK and USA, having a cover price in cents as well as pence (it's good evidence of inflation too!) I have added a citation to the Chicago Tribune to further demonstrate international coverage. Warden (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you actually sighted the full text of either of these publications (as opposed to mere 'Google snippets')? If so, I'm sure we're all interested in the full amount of what they actually have to say on the topic, in order to test whether or not they contain "significant coverage" of the topic (quotes please!). If not, then I would question the probity of their citation in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen full text and provided some quotes in my citations. The accusations and insinuations of dishonesty by yourself and Treasury Tag are improper, being contrary to our
  insults. Warden (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Also, having read a great many very similar magazines (Wargamer, Dungeon, The Wyrm's Footprints -- to name but the few that I can recall immediately to mind), I am well aware that a review of a game in them does not render a game notable (or even assure its continued availability). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Those publications are irrelevant to this topic. The Chicago Tribune is a mainstream source and so we now have a good mix of general and specialist publications confirming the notability of this topic. Warden (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I remember the day when this used to be a popular alternative to Monopoly. Noteability well established by editor Warden's improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would note that, as of these "improvements", most of the article is cited to "the board game itself and its instruction manual published by Intellect(UK) Ltd., 1971". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three, maybe 4 of the 5 references are other sources.

1. ^ "Cabbie", Games & Puzzles' (Punch Publications Ltd) (20): 16, December 1973, "Inventor: David Drakes"

2. ^ London Cabbie Game, BoardGameGeek LLC, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1581

3. ^ Horace Sutton (Dec 21, 1975), "Christmas gift ideas for travelers, Dec. 21, 1975", Chicago Tribune

4. ^ Peter Watts, Taxi! and London Cabbie, "London board games", Time Out

5. ^ From the board game itself and its instruction manual published by Intellect(UK) Ltd., 1971

This collector site shows a picture of the game, and claims it "won game of the year when it was released". Don't know what this is referring too. Maybe the name after the AFD should be named London Cabbie Game? Okip 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nice improvements to the article. Shows notability. Okip 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources in the article now prove it is notable. Google search for "London Cabbie" and "Board game" and the first link is http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1581/london-cabbie-game which proves it exists, and gives some information to add to the article, and start searching for information from. Most news articles about it are behind a paywall. Can anyone access this? [2] or [3] Dream Focus 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with improvements made.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2011 (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.