Talk:Kim Richard Nossal

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: The drinking game is definitely NOT a practical joke, although it might seem so to someone who has not attended this particular university.  Drinking games based around a professor's quirks are very popular at Queen's university, to the point that many people have bars sewn onto their university jackets to indicate which ones they have participated in.  The rules to these games are also very consistent, so this isn't merely a "version" of the Nossal Drinking Game, this is in fact the Nossal Drinking Game.
To remove information of this nature is to deny a prevalent facet of tradition and community at Queen's. --Elfer 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The drinking game reeks of "original research". Let the Globe and Mail, or Toronto Star, talk about the drinking game first -- then we'll write about it here. Andy Saunders 20:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shall I remove all of the books written by Nossal as well?  After all, those were "made up in school one day" as well. --Elfer 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Published works are verifiable. A drinking game is not. Andy Saunders 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, you can verify that it exists if you want.  Come over to Queen's and we'll prove it to you. --Elfer 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drinking Game

message: Wikipedia exists to convey factual, relevant information.  That there is a Nossal drinking game is factual information.  It is also relevant information.  Ergo, there is no reason not to include such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.206.152 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-15
: Wikipedia exists to convey factual, relevant, verifiable information. That we can not verify the existence of a Nossal drinking game means that there is no reason to include such information. Andy Saunders 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. When the Toronto Star, Globe & Mail, or National Post does a story on the Kim Richard Nossal drinking game, or if someone does a scholarly, peer-reviewed, article about the Kim Richard Nossal drinking game, then it'll show up here. Before then, I will take steps to ensure that it is not included in the article. Andy Saunders 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Drinking Game 

message: Answering an RfC: verifiable means any editor or reader can confirm the source of the information. This doesn't have to be online. It can be a newspaper article or other news media. See WP:NOTE, WP:CITE. This also means we can't include hearsay or original research (one's own perspective or knowledge). If one or two or three editors "know" a certain fact, but can't produce a shred of third party confirmation, then the "fact" is liable to removal. BTW, User:OntarioQuizzer, don't forget that you can put the  tag on any addition that seems unfounded. If a citation isn't provided, then remove it. Reverting edits repeatedly gives off the aroma of WP:OWN. HTH, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside comments

message: Saw your request for comment up, and I'm actually surprised at how easy the answer is. The inclusion of the drinking game is not acceptable under 3 levels of guidelines.
#It violates WP:OR, as in it is original research put in the article. This is clear due to no sources added in whatsoever.
#It violates WP:NOT, under "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day", which this is.
#Lastly, if it were that notable, it would have its own article, which it does not because it would fail WP:N.
Anyone who has questions on why it's not acceptable can talk to me. --Wizardman 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC