Talk:Tom Koch

43-Man Squamish was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 June 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Tom Koch. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

How in hell is this a merge? The only info about squamish is the one mention that was there already. Nobody even added a direct source link for it. What makes this less valid and noteworthy than the article on Cowznofski? What do Fizzbin, Moopsball and Calvinball have that makes them worth keeping if 43-man squamish isn't? --184.148.53.233 (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should put it back the way it should be. --Meve Stills (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not reverted back to the way it should be?

This place is… no, some people around here are incredibly nuts at times. Here we had an actual article that did and should still stand on its own, but one weird opinion didn't like it that way. So now it's wrong. Happy? Crap like this really pisses me off. --Meve Stills (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]