Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilwins
Since the comment chain up above with {{u|HighKing}} is rather long I will try to lay out my argument as cogently as I can and then leave it in the hands of the XFD folks. The crux of the dispute is what defines "independent" with regards to the notability criteria. NCORP, fortunately, has a section on this and we can compare it against the article. We are asked to consider the independence of the author and content. The articles given as examples were written by well-established sources (regional newspapers mostly) who have no demonstable financial link to the company. There is no reason to believe that any of the authors or publications are in any way stakeholders in the company, and the success or failure of the company has no bearing on the publication. The subsequent section outlining examples of dependent coverage doesn't give us much reason to doubt notability either: the articles clearly are not written by the company in any form and there is no reason to believe that these particular articles were paid for in otherwise reliably independent sources. In my opinion, the counter-arugment to its notability requries such a specific and strict view of NCORP that it runs afoul of . I don't agree that input from a shareholder invalidates a source as otherwise independent, and I do not agree that there is sufficient grounds to say NCORP as currently written prohibits these sources without a significant degree of interpretation
— User:Teemu08, 20:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BURO (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)