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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trembulo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined by a user who argued "not a hoax" with sources, but they are: an unreliable-looking site that sells stuff, an apparently user-submitted site, a site that trips the spam filter, and one of those books that consists of republished Wikipedia articles. If this were a real instrument, surely more concrete sources would exist. I can't find a thing on this instrument that is in any way reliable, so I call hoax. Most likely the other "sources" brought up by the deprodder just scooped up info from this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user referred to above. I agree the article looks suspicious and there is little on the internet to support it but I would hold fire on deletion until the subject can be investigated further. If it is a hoax it is a extensive and well orchestrated one or else maybe a demonstration of the way that false information can propagate. I could be worth an article as a hoax if it turns out that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the "sources" out there seem to spring from the Wikipedia article itself. Given that they're all dodgy things like personal websites and books that contain reprints of Wikipedia articles, I really suspect hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I looked into it with the ghits and similar available as of a week ago or so. The "book" which mentions it looks suspiciously like a "print on demand" where is seems not at all unlikely that someone just googled up "Instruments tuned XYZ" and added "trembulo" to the list of instruments thusly tuned. Further, my vague impression is that there is one single Person X posting on a few string instrument forums discussing an instrument named "trembulo", and what few mentions independent of that exist seem quite plausibly based on said person having brought up the topic in the first place. Fundamentally, I'm not seeing anything at all to clearly indicate that Person X didn't just make up the term and apply it to several pictures of instruments, and a few folks picked up that ball and ran with it for a few yards. I'm not necessarily alleging malfeasance, but it's possible someone in good faith picked a rather arbitrary name to pin on a theoretical instrumental construct, and somehow it ever so slightly took off on the blogosphere. Fundamentally, and speaking as a long-time member of WP:MUSINST and fella who's written multiple properly-referenced articles on instruments played by a few hundred tribesman back in the forest somewhere, I'm seeing zero to indicate that this is anything other than "made up last week" or a full-on hoax. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Quintola I can find, written up by Robert Lewin in 1972. This, I have not found. Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have you looked? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the places that I usually do, and all of the places that I looked for the quintola in. I found the quintola in The Strad magazine, to which Lewin was a regular contributor, as you can see. Lewin did a whole article on it, which was in the July (not April) issue and what details I can check out of which (such as the violin maker's name) check out. The only person who seems convinced of the existence of this instrument, however, is Emma dusepo (talk · contribs), who was vague on the details of the Quintola, as you can see, and who shares that name with the person behind the spam-URL-blocked "stringed instrument database". Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for this during the RFC but came up dry other than a website that "discovered" this instrument care of Wikipedia citogenesis. No relevant hits in Google Books. No RS. No deal. (Note that there is a full Commons category to clean up if this is deleted: commons:Category:Trembulo) czar · · 09:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.