This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2015. The result of the discussion was merge to Tom Koch. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
"Single source"?
In all fairness, Wikipedia must rely on a single source for this article, since there was only one source to begin with (i.e. the original Mad Magazine item). I mean, it's not like I go to the bookstore, check out the sports shelf, and see a lot of 43-Man Squamish books on the shelf next to baseball.
David Lafleche
This obviously was never a major cultural phenomenon, but it has a certain place within "nerd culture" (or whatever you want to call it), and I see no real reason why the article needs to be deleted. AnonMoos ( talk) 02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Our family referenced "43-Man Squamish" for years afterwards. It should not be deleted. I also would like to suggest that perhaps Quidditch was at least partially inspired by this game...perhaps if Rowling would 'fess up, that would make deletion impossible. (BPJ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.249.42 ( talk) 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I make allusions to "43 Man Squamish" in talks I give and find a good proportion of audiences snicker knowingly about it. I go on to explain and a lot of others engage. Love having the Wikipedia reference to pass along. Please keep! 143.236.88.251 ( talk) 14:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC) George
The article seems to have left out the best part... although my memory is a little hazy on this. As I recall, at the end of the game the teams attacked the spectators in the parking lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.109.168 ( talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The history says it was deleted after discussion, but I see no discussion stating WHY it should be deleted. Therefore, it was deleted by one person's opinion and should be re-added. As it is now, it was merged into both Tom Koch's and George Woodbridge's pages, which is really stupid. A correction in one probably won't be done in the other, so it should be its own page. -- Meve Stills ( talk) 21:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)