Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kuf-Linx


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Kuf-Linx

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article, referenced entirely to unreliable self-published sources with no evidence of any properly reliable source coverage in real media shown at all, about a band whose only discernible claim of notability is that they existed. Existing is not an automatic free pass over WP:NMUSIC, but nothing else stated or sourced about them here even tries to pass NMUSIC for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAll Here  talk  09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAll Here  <sub style="color:blue">talk  09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep plenty of coverage on Google Books including contemporary coverage and more recent coverage noting their role in establishing the record label they signed to, their song So Tough charting, their backup band making news, and more. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable, third-party, published sources provided to support notability. --Rpclod (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you look for any? FloridaArmy (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you improve the article to reference the "plenty of coverage" such that notability is clear?--Rpclod (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - FloridaArmy is right, although they should provide a link or two of examples for clarity. For instance, entry in the Encyclopedia of Rhythm and Blues seems, in my opinion, to more than establish suitability in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Cuff-Links are actually a different band. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * here's a source noting the Kuf-Linx vekrsion of So Tough charting. [[User:FloridaArmy|FloridaArmy] (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I guess an alternative to deletion would be to redirect to The Champs - which formed when the musicians were invited to record as a backing band for this iteration of the Kuf-Linx. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The record label would probably be a better merge target. But my understanding is bands with songs that have charted are inherently notable. There's also quite a bit of coverage of this band on Google Books and elsewhere as noted above and seen whem the Google Books link above is utilized. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep According to sources in the article, So tough peaked at 76 on Billboard which satisfies WP:BAND #2 and there is independent RS coverage, some of which is now included in the article thanks to FloridaArmy. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing any citation that demonstrates that the song was listed on the Billboard Hot 100 or certified by the RIAA, either of which is required for BAND #2 criteria. One of the added Google links does not mention the subject or song at all and the other page does not indicate that the song charted.--Rpclod (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The cite I linked to above notes the song charted (as well as the song recorded by the band backing the group at the same session). I've seen it noted in other sources as well including a comparison of the rankings of the two song versions recorded by different groups at around the same time. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just saying "charted" is insufficient. That can mean many things; it needs to be in either the Billboard Hot 100 or certified by the RIAA as gold or platinum to meet WP:BAND criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NMUSIC's charting criterion is not passed just because a book generically says "the song charted", without specifying what chart it purportedly appeared on. For all that source actually tells us, the song could have merely have spent one week at #40 on one local radio station in one single market. To make a band notable for charting, you have to be able to cite a source which confirms a specific chart position on a specific IFPI-certified chart provider that's considered an acceptable chart by WP:Record charts — you can't get them over that criterion just by citing a source which says "it charted" without specifying where or when or what chart position it reached. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Charted on Billboard chart. See Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-2006 Record Research, 2007 - Music - 1176 pages page 476. Noted in sources already cited. And clearly meets the notability music guidelines in several respects. I don't know what else to tell you. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim that they charted in Billboard is reflected only in the article's unacceptable sources (the unreliable fansites that don't count for guano). No reliable source present in the article says any such thing at all — the only Billboard citation given in the article is to an advertisement, not editorial content or an actual Billboard chart. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had not realized that the existing cited link was not RS for this fact. This Billboard one should be better: 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bingo! Tied at 76 on the Billboard 100 and I struck my delete !vote. Hopefully someone adds this reference with some discussion at the article page.--Rpclod (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.