Deletion of KJIVA

Comment: Our |guidelines are clear: whether the subject is notable is irrelevant if the article itself fails to establish notability. At present, this relies on press releases and trade websites; if GNG cannot be met, it should be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails , , and . Unable to locate reliable secondary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO||WP:MUSICBIO)

Comment: The article is on the same subject as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjiva, which closed as "delete" last September after many of the "keep" comments there were found to have been from sockpuppets. The article was created again a week or so afterwards, and I deleted it per #G4 (speedy delete for re-creation of a deleted article) and protected it against repeated re-creation. It seems to have been re-created again, almost immediately, under the present title. However, the current article is significantly longer than the deleted ones, enough that I think G4 no longer applies. I have no personal opinion on the notability of the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)