Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Rain band


 * 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 Userfy to User:Rainbase. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Desert Rain band

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested speedy deletion nomination a few days ago. Long article but with references and a number of name drops of notable musicians that have guested with them, so a candidate for AFD. Personally I lean toward a lack of notability. KaisaL (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note The creating user has also created an article for one of their albums at Desert Rain: Vacation. KaisaL (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kaisal, thanks for the opportunity to respond here. I am doing whatever I can to comply with Wiki guidelines in getting this page done correctly. Desert Rain has been a hard working New England band for three decades and has recently made good inroads in terms of a growing fan base and higher visibility gigs. I would implore you to please not delete this page but rather continue t let me refine it. As of yesterday it qualified as a "starter class" page, which I found encouraging. As far as "name dropping", we have performed a dozen shows with Ed Mann (with four more coming this week) and this lineup will likely be an ongoing thing in the future. I see you also commented that my article is long. Please allow me the opportunity to edit it shorter if that helps. So again, I ask that you work with me to make the Desert Rain Band page a viable part of Wikipedia. I thank you in advance for any help or suggestions. Cheers - Jan G.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbase (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I was just poking around and saw what looked like a warning that I should stop editing the page until this is resolved. I truly apologize that I have continued editing. The Talk Page had some info telling me that I needed to add the band's discography... which I started (as you noted). I guess this was a mistake? I will cease all editing until I get further instructions. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbase (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Rainbase. Please feel free to continue to edit the article - in fact, that is encouraged! If you can add more reliable sources on the band it will help with any decision as to whether the notability guidelines are being met. It's not for me personally to decide, I am only listing it here, but as it stands I feel it is contentious - anything you can do to improve the article will help your case! KaisaL (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! Two quick points.  (1) Please add new posts to the bottom of a talk page section, not to the top.  (2) Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes.  That is, type   at the end of your post.  When you save it, your user name and the time and date will be substituted.  Thanks.  P.S. On Wikipedia, the word "notability" (or "notable") has a special meaning, which I will explain here if I get a chance.  Or perhaps some other editor will do it first.  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify exactly why you have nominated the article for deletion -- and therefore what improvements would be necessary, in your view, for the article to be kept? Is it strictly a question of establishing notability, or what?  Thanks.  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Mudwater - Sure! I am not convinced that Desert Rain meet any point of WP:BAND or prove to be a special case. What is included in the article, while eye-catching with some of the names mentioned, does not seem to be enough. Other indicators such as social media reach are also unconvincing (1,000~ likes on Facebook is local band level). Finally, most of the sources are attributed to Jan Goldstein, their vocalist. If more sources to demonstrate either past or present major media coverage can be provided, or indication that their albums have charted on a major listing in the U.S. or abroad, I would be happy to reconsider. My decision to list was initially due to noticing the album article on new pages patrol, and in turn picking up on the contested speedy deletion. KaisaL (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the article. It's quite nice.  But, as you can see, it's been nominated for deletion.  That's because KaisaL is not convinced that the band is "notable" in the special Wikipedia sense.  As it says at WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."  If you follow that link you will see an explanation of what that means.  And if you look at WP:BAND, you will see an interpretation of this guideline, specialized for bands.  Please look through those.  The basic idea is that a band -- or any subject of a stand-alone Wikipedia article -- has to have been written about to a significant degree by reliable, third-party sources.  For example, if there are several articles about the band -- online, or in print publications -- that might be enough.  But the articles can't be written by the band, or by people who are professionally associated with the band, because then they're not third-party sources.  And also, blogs and internet forum discussions don't count, it has to be actual articles, or substantial sections of articles, or paragraphs in books, or things of that nature.  Any such references that could be added to the article would be a big plus.  Meanwhile, it's likely that other editors will add their own opinions here.  I believe discussions like this are normally kept open for a week, unless there's a good reason to leave them open any longer.  I would encourage you to post here with any questions you may have. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mudwater. Hi, thanks for your input. As I said earlier, I am scrambling to produce some of the press we've received in the past. Since much our history was in the 20th Century, the internet doesn't hold much of our past. I will find some print articles... someone in this band has a box of that stuff. I am also looking for online radio station logs or archives, as we have done quite a few live in studio interviews. I'm sure that I can come up with acceptable sources, but it will take a little time. Furthermore, Ed Mann (who is pretty famous) has chosen us as one of his semi-regular projects. We're a a hard working group and getting in front of some god crowds right now. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbase (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Print articles should work. The more well-known the publication or author, and the longer or more detailed the article, the better.  "P.S." When signing your post, don't put in those tags that I had in my post, just type the four tildes.  That'll make it change to your name with the time and date.  — Mudwater (Talk) 01:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Nice long article but the content isn't supported by the sources and the sources aren't notable. The current references have nothing in-depth that's independent of the band.  If new reliable sources surface I'd reconsider.  I didn't find anything helpful in my searches.  There does seem to be another band with the same name getting some press in Missouri & Utah.  Gab4gab (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * How's it going on finding those print articles, to use as references? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mudwater. Hi, thanks for following up. I put out the call on FB to friends, fans, out band mates for any press clippings people might have and it looks like there are a few of these things preserved. A couple folks are to be mailing me what I need. I do have a question for you though; do I scan these and put them on their own wiki page with links to them or just cite the information "where when what"? I also added a few links to radio interviews we did over the years. I figure every little bit helps! Thanks,Mudwate. Oh,one last things... I am a little confused what the "four tildes" thing is exactly to sign my posts correctly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbase (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) For using the printed materials as references, just cite them in footnotes, it's not necessary to scan and upload them. Include the author's name, the date, the name of the article, and the name of the publication, and also the page number if you have it.  (2) For signing your talk page posts, at the end of your post, just type in four tildes.  On a U.S. keyboard, the tilde is the squiggly line that's on the key near the upper left of the keyboard, to the left of the key with the number 1 -- you'd hold down shift and hit that key four times.  That's going to look like this:  .  You can copy and paste it from this post too, but don't copy the "code" and "nowiki" tags.  If you do it right, then when you hit the "show preview" button, you'll see your "signature" -- your user name and the time and date.  (3) Check this out if you get a chance: Tutorial. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mudwater Great! Thanks for the info. Please give me a little more time to see what arrives for press clippings. Hopefully they'll do the trick! Cheers! Rainbase (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be an idea to list some of the press clippings now to give those in this discussion a feel for their relevance. One or two local newspaper articles are unlikely to suffice, but if you've had substantial national or major music magazine coverage that you'll be providing evidence of, it might have an impact on the conclusion of this debate. I wouldn't want you to spend time scanning and adding clippings only to find they aren't sources that justify the band's inclusion. KaisaL (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As this has gone to a relist and Rainbase has now added some sources to the article, I'm quite convinced to say that this band doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. One of the sources is nothing to do with the band, a couple of small radio interviews, and another is a 1993 new bands piece from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, which wouldn't count as a significant newspaper beyond the local level. I'm sorry to have to say this because Rainbase (actually Jan, the band's vocalist, so we do have a WP:COI here too) has put a lot of work into the article and it's very well written. I just can't, unfortunately, see where the notability argument comes in. Other points tempering this are that this publicity for such a long-running band is thin and spaced out; Even with a couple more sources, I can't see that making a difference, and what is there now is clutching at straws to say the least. We would know by now if a national newspaper or Rolling Stone had run features on them. Desert Rain seem to be a hard-working, local-level band with some famous friends - but WP:NOTINHERITED would apply there too - and I can't believe anything other than a delete is appropriate. Again, I'm sorry. KaisaL (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Possibly the printed references that you're trying to get would support the idea that the band meets the notability requirements for having a Wikipedia article.  So, there's another option here, I believe.  You can request that the article be moved to your user space, while you take your time tracking down all the references, and prepare to resubmit the article.  So the article would be "un-published", and would be on a page with a name like "User:Rainbase/Desert Rain band".  I can help you with that, if you like. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I am skeptical that suitable printed references will surface later, I would be happy to support this too. KaisaL (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@ kaisal & Mudwater. Yes, I guess I would appreciate that this be moved to a user page. I'm obviously sad that we haven't met the criteria for wiki yet. In my mind, it's noteworthy that the great Ed Mann now plays with us. He's ONLY on more Frank Zappa albums than any living musician. That's famous, right? Anyways, we're having great year and who know, maybe we'll end up with some beefier sources. In the meantime, I will use the user space to at least finish the stuff I was working on. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbase (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To reply to your latest point: I think it's absolutely famous for him, which is why he has an article at Ed Mann. Unfortunately, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and so the fact he plays with you would not automatically make you notable. KaisaL (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy per the above discussion. There does not appear to be any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but if the author wants the opportunity to work on it in the userspace, they should be given it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MelanieN. After you relisted this discussion, I suggested that the article be moved to the user space of the editor who created it, Rainbase, so that he can take as much time as he wants to find more printed references that might establish the notability (in the Wikipedia sense of the term) of the Desert Rain band. He has agreed to this, and a couple of other editors have said that they think this is a reasonable idea. You can see all this above. So, would you please move "Desert Rain band" to "User:Rainbase/Desert Rain band", and close this discussion? Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:49, 3 July 2016 (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.