Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tummel


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Tummel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Music group with no assertion of notability, I had declined speedy prior to make it a redirect Alexandria   (talk)  03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Try these:
 * Ben Ohmart, The Muse's Muse - CD Review: Tummel - Klezmer. 17 Nov 2001.
 * Chris Nickson CD Universe Review "A Danish/Swedish band with no deep Jewish roots playing klezmer? Well, why not, especially when it's done as well as Tummel does on Klezmer."
 * Eelco Schilder Folkworld CD Reviews - Tummel 'Oy' "Oy is a fresh, strong cd and highly recommended to everybody who likes Klezmer music."
 * Robert M Tilendis Green Man Review - Tummel 'Payback Time' "Think about the band playing on while the Titanic goes down. Think of some of Joel Gray's bitchier numbers in Cabaret. Think of Josephine Baker at her most outrageous taking Paris by storm. Think of a bunch of crazy Swedes with no inhibitions whatsoever getting together and letting everyone have it, right between the eyes. That might give an inkling of the tone of Tummel's Payback Time."


 * I think that would be enough to demonstrate Notability. Actually I had a quick listen too. Not bad! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have swiftly added these reviews (with a few more quotes) to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was only aware that Tummel was well known enough in Sweden to be regarded as notable, but Chiswick Chap has shown above that - in addition to this - the band also has an international reputation which I was not aware of. /FredrikT (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep thanks to Chiswick Chap's sourcing. Th e S te ve  00:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:BAND. First criterion is non-trivial coverage "in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" - the reviews listed seem to be more akin to blogs than online versions of print media (correct me if I'm wrong). 126.109.230.149 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Band says "at least one of the following criteria".
 * Criterion #1 says "..subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works in all forms.." - we have here the long-standing and very reputable FolkWorld.de's CD Reviews which have been trusted and helpful to folk music fans like me for over 10 years now; and the very large and respected CD Universe which writes "reliable, independent" reviews of thousands of CDs. Together these certainly meet WP:Band. The Muse's Muse is not a blog, either, but a long-standing songwriting website, founded in 1995, so it is not only independent and reliable, but written with knowledge. The Green Man Review is more of a music blog - perhaps you were referring to this, but a considered and thoughtful one, and in any case it's just a supplementary source.


 * If that's not enough (I suggest it should be) then recall that WP:Band Criterion#5 has "released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". 'Payback Time' and 'Transit' were both released on CD Baby.Com/Indys, which is a very large, possibly the largest, indie label. Klezmerized/Oy was released by Arc Music, founded in 1976, which has released over 700 CDs of folk and world music. It is probably (as it claims) the largest world music label in, er, the world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:Band says at least one, which is why I said fails to meet ANY of the criteria. Folkworld, CD Baby.com etc, Muse Muse's, etc: you can put any adjective in front of them that you want, that doesn't mean it's true. If each of these sources meet WP:RS, prove it! Don't just spout meaningless nonsense like "long-standing and very reputable", "trusted and helpful to folk music fans like for over 10 years", "not a blog but a long-standing songwriting website", "founded in 1995, so it is not only independent and reliable, but written with knowledge" etc. You're completely missing the point.126.109.230.149 (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Fails to meet ANY of the criteria"? Although you may not consider the publications ChiswickChap quotes notable enough you haven't even addressed what he says about the records issued on established labels (nor what I've written below about the coverage in Sydsvenskan). /FredrikT (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FredrikT, I'm sorry that you failed too realize that Chipwit's claims about the importance of the labels were just as vacuous as his claims about how long-standing and reputable those other sites were. He didn't provide any proof for any of his claims. Also, quoting "fails to meet ANY of the criteria" with a question mark appended implies that you wanted to discuss how they meet some of the other criteria - maybe you forgot to? 126.109.230.149 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the band has been written about and had at least one of its records reviewed by Sydsvenskan which is a major Swedish newspaper. I've added a couple of links to that paper in the article. /FredrikT (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 < "a couple of". I don't know, is a single review in a local newspaper enough for inclusion? Does that qualify as non-trivial? As for the "article about the band in Sydsvenskan", it was actually published in Sydsvenskan-owned free newspaper/weekly event listings magazine "Dygnet Runt" (similar to Time Out New York) in connection to a listed concert - i.e. the article might have been paid for. 126.109.230.149 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For non-Swedish readers it should perhaps be pointed out that Sydsvenskan which 126.109.230.149 refers to above as "a local newspaper" is Sweden's 4th biggest morning paper and 6th biggest paper if you also count the evening tabloids (see the sales figures on page 5 of this summary of the Swedish press in 2010). And back in 2007 (at least if I recall correctly) Dygnet runt was not a free paper but a part of the regular issue with ordinary editorial material. The article in question (as well as the later CD review) is also written by Alexander Agrell, a long-standing regular music journalist at Sydsvenskan.
 * It should also be noted that I have only added two references to Tummel in Sydsvenskan out of the 25 possible ones you get when you search the paper's online edition. Here are a few more:
 * Journalist Emma Thörnkvist lists the band's website as "the best site".
 * Tummel used as a reference when describing another klezmer band in a review
 * an article and a blog post, both by Sydsvenskan's regular rock critic Håkan Engström, about the band "Babian" in which it is specially noticed that some of members of that band are former Tummel musicians.
 * Article about the annual klezmer festival of Lund, where one of the other participating artists is qouted saying that "many are probably coming just to see Tummel"
 * And so on - this is from 2009-2011 only. The list of articles goes back to 2005. /FredrikT (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For those able to read Swedish I would recommend having a look at the article's Swedish discussion page where much additional media coverage has been recently listed, amongst them the fact that a performance by the band has been broadcast as "Veckans konsert" (concert of the week) on Swedish national television. /FredrikT (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FredrikT, if you can bear it, it would be very helpful if you could add a few of these extra links to the article, preferably with some short quotations from what Håkan Engström and others have written about Tummel. Then Notability will be bortom tvivel as one might say... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do, but I'm a bit short of time at the moment. And writing takes more time than just finding sources, especially if you're not writing in your own language. /FredrikT (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * References Added - I have looked up the Sydsvenskan, Skanskan and Swedish Television articles and created references from them, using FredrikT's comments - hope this is all right. I've translated one of them in the Reception section - there's a lot more work to do to make full use of the references, but I have no doubt the band is Notable with such good and frequent media coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe User:FredrikT and I have answered the criticisms offered by 126.109.230.149 by adding citations and quotations by reviewers to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2011 (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.