Deletion of National Ballot Access

Comment: I am working off the research of Cunard here, but I don't think these references are enough for a keep. There may be RS that have mentioned the topic, but that doesn't make it notable by itself. The mention in the  has to provide enough evidence that the topic is notable, and I'm not sure it does that. While the Daily Nebraskan article may have substantial coverage, that's not enough for a keep because it doesn't demonstrate its notability, only that it has been mentioned. The RS guideline, of course, works in conjunction with WP:notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: It appears that this John Wynne Jr is the same one who is the "Petitioner / Sub-Coordinator"       at National Ballot Access as per http://www.linkedin.com/pub/10/9a9/914 I have placed a  tag in his talk page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: The article is so full of |puffery that it is difficult to distinguish between which sources are relevant and which are not. Of the 14 sources, in the article 12 are either behind a paywall, contain only passing mentions of this company, or don't even mention it at all. http://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/1.1127908-1.1127908 This news source from the ''Daily Nebraskan'' contains significant coverage about this company, while http://www.progressivestates.org/node/22080 this source from Progressive States Network has a paragraph about this company. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:su2TlpmoXTcJ:www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/10/right-to-work-closer-to-ballot/+%22National+Ballot+Access%22&cd=71&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us This source contains some information about some concerns with National Ballot Access. IMO, these sources are enough for National Ballot Access to barely pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFF||WP:CORP)