Deletion of JK! Studios

Comment: the subject passes our general notability guide. Coverage exists . Doing a  should have discovered the sources to show notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: First of all, this topic is being examined under  since it is an organization. It would be impressive for any organization (founded in 2019 http://jkstudios.com/about-jk-studios/ according to the website to meet the criteria for notability which requires at least two different sources providing significant () in-depth () coverage containing independent content (). Many of the Keep !voters above have stated that such coverage exists (which is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability) or that there is "ample coverage" (again, not one of the criteria for notability) but in my opinion, have no clue as to the rest of the criteria including the guidelines for independent content as per . Rather than stating the nom should have complied with , my advice would be for those very same editors to take a good long read of  and especially . Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An evaluation of the sources contained in the article and mentioned above are as follows
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:BEFORE||WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: There is definitely . The arguments are logical on both sides - I think more logical in my interpretation. High King made an argument for calling this comedy group a corporation, and I made an argument to say they are entertainers . I think if we polled the ivoters 6 would agree with me and the  rationale and 3 or 4 would agree with the High King and the  rational. That is a clear  and if anything, leaning Keep. I went to the relister's page to question the relisting comments, and I got a very condescending response. I only hope that a different uninvolved admin closes with a fair reading of this AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:NOCONSENSUS||WP:ENT||WP:ENT||WP:NCORP||WP:NOCONSENSUS)

Comment: for reasons in the immediately preceding post.  Meets  and igcov.  No compliance with efore, which sets forth a series of hurdles before a rod is filed.  A quick search of the sources (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22JK%21+Studios%22+-wikipedia listed at the top of this AFD) shows no compliance with efore.  While sourcing can be improved 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:S||WP:B||WP:P||WP:B||WP:NEXIST)

Comment: per nom. Some sources reliable but snippets do not establish notability.  lists "significant coverage (which) addresses the topic directly and in detail," as a requirement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)