Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:B4bonah

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:B4bonah

 * – (View MfD)

This page is being tendentiously resubmitted in both draft space and in article space. The article was already deleted in the past week after Articles for deletion/B4bonah (3rd nomination), but has been resubmitted in article space where it is being tagged for G4. It was previously deleted from article space via Articles for deletion/B4bonah. It needs deletion from draft space and a generous application of silver nitrate in both draft space and article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Recreated article. 🌺Kori🌺  - ( @ ) 04:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. This draft is much improved upon the page deleted at AfD3.  The first reference meets the GNG. The author, User:Kwamevaughan is experienced, and has NOT tendentiously resubmitted.  I disagree with McClenon’s REJECT tagging.  Before trying again, I recommend WP:THREE, most certainly within six months of the close of AfD3.  There is no justification for deleting or salting of this draft.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Just failed an AfD three weeks ago (for the third time). Nothing has changed in that time to even hint to notability. SmokeyJoe above has incorrectly assessed a WP:ROUTINE announcement of a signing to a non-wikinotable label as somehow passing GNG. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be right about ROUTINE, but right now I would argue at AfD that this meets the GNG, unless I am told that MIMLife is not independent of Ghanaweb.com, and noting that I try to be extra generous to topics from places that suffer from systematic bias, like how reliably sourced commentary is comparatively very difficult in subsaharan nations. Normally, I am very harsh on attempted recreations so soon after a clear AfD decision to delete, and I do. To support it being resubmitted within six months by default, but I am not ready to agree to deletion from draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , For GNG, you need coverage in more than one source. So pointing out one source isn't going to do it. Also, an announcement of a record deal would be considered trivial under the first prong of WP:BAND. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sulfurboy, yes, the GNG requires multiple GNG-meeting sources. I suggest that maybe that one is a GNG-meeting source.  The others are definitely not.  If there is arguably one GNG-meeting source, that is a good reason for it to be kept in draftspace. On "trivial", I would argue that "B4Bonah is the only artiste on the label now together with an in-house sound engineer by name Zodiac. The C.E.O mentioned that the great musical talent that B4Bonah possesses plus their good working relationship played pivotal roles in putting the deal to paper" can be considered to cross the poorly defined "trivial" line, although I will not argue that with much conviction, I normally expect two full strung sentences of comment directly on the subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC). Admittedly a weak keep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.