Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep – PeaceNT 08:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie was previously nominated for deletion in July 2005 for lack of notability. The decision was to redirect. Since then, the article has gotten larger, but no reliable sources have been added.

This article is entirely uncited original research. Tags saying as much, in addition to questioning again the subject's notability have been on the article since December 5, 2006.

This article has been on Wikipedia for two and a half years now, and the group's Web site is still its only source. Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator.--Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsure I voted keep on this last time, but that was a long time ago and it looks like verifiability has been a lasting problem since then. Google News Archive has some articles, but some are just press-release stuff and others are tangental or simple mentions.    I can't really tell one way or another whether it would be enough to support an article or not.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact the article hasn't been improved is something to be discussed within the article. The comedy troupe is quite notable in Canada and as noted in the article even had their own TV series. Unless the nominator has some evident to suggest this article is a hoax, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be kept. 23skidoo 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I find no reference to any television show outside of this article. Regardless, I can go get a television on a government-sponsored today, and anyone can self-publish CDs and DVDs easily. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - it'd be a full keep if there was anything resembling a source in there. It desperately needs work on the verification side, but I know these guys were quite the thing in Canada for a while, and the CBC show indicates a high level of notability - if we can find proof of it. (There are plenty of mentions of the show on different pages, but I can't find a knock-em-dead kind of source right now.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — After two and a half years, I would expect that someone should have been able to find a reference to a TV show. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you Google "three dead trolls in a baggie" CBC and weed through, there's lots of mentions of it in different places, but it was slightly pre-Internet, and it was only five episodes, so it's a challenge to find online unfortunately. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment — I have removed the majority of unreferenced info, but what's left still has no source in the article. The site doesn't even have any real info that I can find. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You've either misrepresented or misunderstood the original AFD conclusion; there was a duplicate article on this comedy group at a title with a marginally different spelling (the Wikiserver does not treat "in" and "In" as the same thing in a title). That article was nominated for deletion, and the final result was to redirect the other article to this one. There has never been a proposal to redirect the article anywhere other than its current spelling, and the deletion nomination failed because people felt they were sufficiently notable for an article. At any rate: they are a fairly well-known group in Canadian comedy, and they do get a reasonably good number of Google hits. An unverifiable claim is not, in and of itself, a legitimate reason to delete an entire article if other parts of it are verifiable; it's only a legitimate reason to remove the specifically unverifiable parts. And for what it's worth, this page does make at least a passing reference to the Trolls as an example of Canadian television comedy; whether that by itself is sufficient to verify the television show claim is certainly debatable, I grant, but the verifiability of the TV show claim is not, in and of itself, a deletion criterion. Keep and cleanup. Bearcat 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — I misunderstood. I'm not sure why I am supposed to think that this is actually a well-known group; I don't live in Canada, and I certainly have never heard of them. The article reads like any of the other article about a non-notable group on Wikipedia, their web site looks amateurish, and they self-release all of their CDs and DVDs. It just looks like some dudes who made an article about themselves. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep --- being a stub isn't itself a valid reason for removal, but a reason for expansion. As I noted on Chris Griswold's talk page, a quick search of Google yields over 33,000 entries. A review of some of those demonstrates notability of this group is met:
 * "Dead (Trolls) In the Water" - VUEWeekly (Edmonton indie weekly magazine); and, "Parkland Institute sponsors night of laughter" - University of Alberta ExpressNews
 * Turning comedy to cash on MP3.com, CBC Radio (Canadian Broadcast Corp), Oct 2, 2000, which notes, "Their sketch "Internet Helpdesk" is now in the top 20 comedy albums on MP3.com"
 * "Interactive Media: Professional Animation, Winner, Alberta New Media Awards, 2002
 * Voices for Hospices 2005, featured performer, part of the "The Worldwide Simultaneous Singing Event", October 8, 2005
 * FOIP Conference, Canadian Government "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" entertainer: "As we have come to expect, the entertainment at the second day luncheon was superb. Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie performed an original song about how to protect your privacy (to the refrain of "Lie, lie, lie, lie…") and showed a video depicting a day in the life of a "bad" and a "good" FOIP Coordinator." (FOIP News, Issue No. 1, August 2001) -- LeflymanTalk 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This group had their own show on CBC (which is not like cable access- it's a full-fledged network like NBC), one of the current and one of the former members have a show on a couple different Canadian specialty channels (The Geek Show http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/mmnr/booktv/), have been featured in non-3DT books (there was a giant Canadian comedy book that had one of their skits, can't recall the name) and "The Toronto Song" is infamous in Canada, although often incorrectly atributed to the Arrogant Worms. --TheTruthiness 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This should never have been proposed for deletion.  Don't nominate things just to get people to add sources.  Rather, add some sources yourself!  &mdash;siro&chi;o 11:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — I take offense to this. I nominated this because in two and ahalf years of existence, this article has never had a single source. That is enough to make someone believe that there is no source. Assume good faith and don't be rude. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't take offense, as none was meant, and I did not assume bad faith. I should not have phrased my comment the way I did.  But before nominating an article for deletion, check to see if your primary reason for nomination holds up past a couple quick searches.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a ton of minor comedy groups on Wikipedia, and most of them have articles that look and read very similarly to this one. Notable group articles tend to explain the notability right in the intro, for example, rather than giving a rundown of the membership changes.I did look for information, but as I said, I did not dig too deeply because the article had not had sources for so long, despite editors' having worked on it. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I dont see why removal is necessary unless it is in fact a redundancy. Pardon my noobishness, but once I figure out how to use the system better, and what exactly counts as a reference, I'd be willing to try to cite one. --xOrion73x 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.