Deletion of Jade Magnet

Comment: Despite the 45 references listed in the article and above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. I wonder if the Keep !voters have read  (especially  and ) because I do not understand how they reached the conclusion that references exist that meet the criteria as described in . There's also a lack of detail provided by those who !voted to Keep and some make no references to policies or guidelines (which, of course, they should). Of those Keep !votes that provide reasons and or refer to policies/guidelines, most are quoted and interpreted incorrectly and/or incompletely. For example, some say that there exists coverage which is "significant" - my opinion is that while some of the publishers may be large/successful/significant, this does not mean that the article is significant. In fact, upon close examination, none of the content is significant since most of it is churnalism and/or derived from primary sources. There are various incomplete interpretations of guidelines - for example, a topic is not automatically notable if it receives coverage in "multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources" because it is *also* a *requirement* that the *content* must be independent (and not a series of "interviews" or articles based on interviews/quotations/announcements) as per . After an examination of the references, not a single reference includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Finally, the references listed by Lightburst above are classic examples of references that fail the criteria for establishing notability. The Economic Times references is classic churnalism complete with photo, history of founders, description of problem, funding history and positive future-looking statement - fails  and it is clearly not independent content. The Business Today reference is entirely based on information and quotations from the founders and one of the angel investors - again fails . Due to the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: per . Non-trivial like: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/different-strokes-jades-creative-crowdsourcing-model/articleshow/7058909.cms?from=mdr Economic Times and https://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/cover-story/working-the-crowd/story/5689.html Business Today. Nominator did not do a thorough . Passing mention in anotherhttps://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/features/crowdsourcing-is-the-new-buzzword-in-communications/story/195160.html Business Today  and https://www.telegraphindia.com/culture/calling-in-the-crowd/cid/1670298 Telegraph India. Trout
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:BEFORE)