The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Unverifiable and no original research. This article has no encyclopedic value, and the origin of the game can be traced to one blogger who admits to creating the game three days ago. [1] -- dtony 05:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Encyclopedic Value? Are you kidding me?! Search drinking games as a general subject on Wikipedia and tell me how many hundreds of entries there are! I assume that those, however, ARE of "encyclopedic value." This was very clever and I vote that it stays. I had it forwarded to me, and I have since forwarded it on to several family members and friends. With the Tigers gaining so much television and media exposure, and all with Rod Allen and Mario Impemba as the faces of these great Tigers, I would say that it falls into the category of current event relevance. As far as it being "verifiable," I verified it at Buffalo Wild Wings on Saturday night with a group of friends - what a great and fun game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.57.149 ( talk • contribs)
Submitter is a life-long Tigers fan and has nothing but respect for both Rod Allen and Mario Impemba (worthy successors to George and Al!). As easy as it is to get swept up in the current Tiger fever, drinking game articles are more suitable to blogs or personal websites than an encyclopedia, especially games that are specific to a small group of friends. -- dtony 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
— Possible single purpose account: 24.148.33.95 ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
“ | From: Jahnke, James <jjahnke@freepress.com>
To: Brian Schott <****@gmail.com> Date: Aug 9, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: RE: THE TICKER: Tigers fans wet whistle listening to Rod Brian, Thanks for the info. I know the game is pretty short-lived on Wikipedia, but The Ticker is designed to be tongue-in-cheek. I hope people realize that it's mostly a joke. Thanks for reading, JRJ |
” |
Just incase anyone wanted to know. -- Bschott 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
“ | A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. | ” |
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Unverifiable and no original research. This article has no encyclopedic value, and the origin of the game can be traced to one blogger who admits to creating the game three days ago. [1] -- dtony 05:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Encyclopedic Value? Are you kidding me?! Search drinking games as a general subject on Wikipedia and tell me how many hundreds of entries there are! I assume that those, however, ARE of "encyclopedic value." This was very clever and I vote that it stays. I had it forwarded to me, and I have since forwarded it on to several family members and friends. With the Tigers gaining so much television and media exposure, and all with Rod Allen and Mario Impemba as the faces of these great Tigers, I would say that it falls into the category of current event relevance. As far as it being "verifiable," I verified it at Buffalo Wild Wings on Saturday night with a group of friends - what a great and fun game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.57.149 ( talk • contribs)
Submitter is a life-long Tigers fan and has nothing but respect for both Rod Allen and Mario Impemba (worthy successors to George and Al!). As easy as it is to get swept up in the current Tiger fever, drinking game articles are more suitable to blogs or personal websites than an encyclopedia, especially games that are specific to a small group of friends. -- dtony 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
— Possible single purpose account: 24.148.33.95 ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
“ | From: Jahnke, James <jjahnke@freepress.com>
To: Brian Schott <****@gmail.com> Date: Aug 9, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: RE: THE TICKER: Tigers fans wet whistle listening to Rod Brian, Thanks for the info. I know the game is pretty short-lived on Wikipedia, but The Ticker is designed to be tongue-in-cheek. I hope people realize that it's mostly a joke. Thanks for reading, JRJ |
” |
Just incase anyone wanted to know. -- Bschott 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
“ | A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. | ” |