Talk:43-Man Squamish

"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

Opposed to deletion
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)
 * see http://humor.about.com/b/2004/01/25/43-man-squamish.htm ... perhaps this could be merged to George Woodbridge rather than deleted outright? The game was mentioned in his obit ( in the NYTimes) so I'd say it does have some notability. If an outside source for the "most requested reprint" from MAD could be found, that would ice this concept's notability I would say. Removing prod. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently the article on the Harry Potter nonsense game of Quidditch is in no danger of deletion. Since Quidditch is nothing more than a highly simplified replication of 43-Man Squamish, it would be a shame to eliminate the discussion of the original game while retaining a detailed description of the copy. Paul (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2012 (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

Left out the best part
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)

Deleting this article was wrong
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)