Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiff's Treats
u|Coffee312}}, yes, I believe everyone would agree that many of the sources are independent, but only insofar as that there is no connection at a corporate level between the publishing organization and the topic company. That is insufficient, on its own, to determine whether a source meets the criteria for establishing independence. Please read  for a full explanation. Nobody is critizing the publisher - certainly nobody has said that the Austin American Statesman isn't a "legitimate" newspaper. The question is whether the *content* is independent. This also has been defined in ORGIND as follows: ''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.'' Therefore, the focus has been on the content of the articles and nothing to do with the decisions made by the publisher leading them to publish the article. Also, be aware that the requirement listed in  is for a source to be "Independent of the subject" which also mean that the content must be independent and this is further explained at CORP
— User:HighKing, 18:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ORGIND||WP:N||WP:NCORP (Wikipedia:Notability)