Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House 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 keep. A clear Keep, especially with the post nomination edits (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House band

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

Deprodded with examples. We have plenty of examples, but they're all primary-sourced. I can find hundreds of books using the term "house band", but little to none that explain it. This is pure and simple, a WP:DICDEF and WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Merge~~ with Musical ensemble. (Band is a disabmig page.) The article only defines the expression (in violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.) It doesn't tell us anything about the history or nature of house bands. The examples are not bad, but they don't justify an article. The article has now been edited to WP notability. BigJim707 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real 'thing' and the article goes beyond a dictionary definition. Several record labels and recording studios had associated house bands, as did many of the top Jamaican producers in the 1960s and 1970s. There is plenty of scope for expansion. --Michig (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This entry in Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World demonstrates that the topic has been treated as an encyclopedic concept. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article a bit and added some references. There's still room for growth, but it's apparent that the topic has been sufficiently covered in reliable sources to warrant a page. Gong show 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing has been improved to including cites that explain the term, as opposed to merely using it. Even though it still needs building out, it clearly exceeds the scope of just dictionary definition. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG per [1], [2]; it's more of a concept rather than a simple dictionary definition. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:18, 15 January 2013 (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.