The result was no consensus over the boundary between "independent" and "affiliated" sources and therefore on the application of WP:GNG. Since the vast majority of the article is certainly verifiable, default to keep. Deryck C. 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally nominate an article of this sort of speedy G11 as highly promotional, but there seems as possibility that it might actually be notable enough to be worth sourcing and rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]