Deletion of A24 (company)

Comment: I can see by a number of questions posted that there is some confusion over why this article was nominated. There shouldn't be. If it is a notable topic (and in truth I'm starting to see that it must be) then I'm delighted to be able to point out the crap referencing so that the article can be made even better. In response to {{u|Lugnuts}}, just to be clear - while the sources may be independent (in that they are not linked with the company they're discussing), the reference must also be *intellectually* independent. That is, it must not rely extensively on company-produced material or announcements - which includes interviews and quotations (and there's always exceptions). These sources are considered PRIMARY sources. There is a lot of confusion (and I see it all the time at AfD) in relation to an "independent source" and an "intellectually independent reference" that meets the criteria for establishing notability. {{u|DarthBotto}} has posted an opinion which doesn't really help any position in this AfD. {{u|Smurrayinchester}} says "pretty much all references 1-14 are from independent sources" but seems confused over the difference between an independent source and an intellectually independent reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Without exception, all of the references 1-14 are either company announcements, business-as-usual announcements such as hiring/firing, articles discussing their marketing campaigns but nothing in-depth in relation to the company itself (the subject of this article), articles based on interviews and articles in relation to movie rights. Not to mention that the remaining references 15-63 are referencing the movies. {{u|Arxiloxos}} lists https://www.fastcompany.com/3054918/upstart-distributor-a24-is-making-indie-films-exciting-again the fastcompany reference and this is good and meets the criteria - it is intellectually independent and in-depth. But both the https://www.gq.com/story/a24-studio-oral-history GQ reference and http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/14/entertainment/la-et-mn-bling-ring-brains-20130614 the latimes article rely on interviews with Sofia Coppola (a business partner) and/or "the company's friends, collaborators and employees" and/or Katz and fails  and/or  as they are not independent from the topic, not intellectually independent, and in some case PRIMARY sources. The WSJ article is behind a firewall and I am unable to verify if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, but if someone else comes along and can verify it, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)