Deletion of WA007

Comment: article subject does not meet  guidelines, but more importantly it is not |verified with |reliable 3rd party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: until all concerns are resolved. The references provided are usable according to . I think this article might just show some promise. Now I know that this article doesn't look that much great yet. But it is official policy to |AGF. We should at least give it a few more days while trying to write a quality article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:AGF)

Comment: At the very least, the second article you cite above was created by an active editor with many edits to unrelated pages.  I see no evidence that he's a principal in the company in question.  The first one may very well be a vanity article, but it should be noted that the existence of one article doesn't justify the existence of any others. If the two articles you cite do indeed violate  and , they should probably be deleted as well
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:VAIN)

Comment: with some sort of Atomic Ray Gun, violates  in ways I never wanted to imagine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:VAIN)

Comment: as article fails to provide |verified evidec as to why WA007 satsifies .  And the article is blatant  and AIN|vanity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:CORP||WP:SPAM||WP:VAIN)

Comment: no evidence that subject meets 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Non-notable spam, , . Even the one link that isn't about James Begera links to a site where he is a judge, so the awards aren't very independent. If only the article had been about the "WA007 Rear Frame Assembly" from the Visio template, you could have got at least two references
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: all the sources - except the last one - are interviews with or about James Begera.  This makes a case perhaps for an article on Mr. Begera (or not, depending on if you view them as |reliable sources, but it doesn't really meet  because the articles would need to be focusing on WA007... not James Begera
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CORP)

Comment: I have included outside sources that are written by third parties to show actual references to the company and its principal, which now complies with the  criteria section 1 of outside sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Not sure why all the hostility. Contributors will prove the importance of WA007's influence in web design and artistic movement. I understand that the article is in violation of . But why are those articles stated above allowed to remain active if they are obviously are violating the same policies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:VAIN)