Deletion of Colloquy (company)

Comment: spaced ndash}}This nomination for deletion is problematic, because it bases the rationale for deletion upon, "Fails ." However,  is an entire page of guidelines, and no specific guideline or guidelines have been cited by the nominator as a rationale for deletion. This equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page. Perhaps the nominator could expound upon their rationale
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:CORP)

Comment: I agree with Byzantium's reasoning. This is in fact not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish , and falls far short of . The ample passing mention, company spokespersons speaking about the company or being interviewed about something else, and the overwhelming amount of press releases inure no notability to this subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: The overarching standard for  established by  is that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." I now consider whether the sources presented meet that standard. Per , "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Consider each source presented by Northamerica1000 in turn. The New York Times article is clearly incidental coverage. The article is about the study; Colloquy is mentioned in passing in one sentence and then never discussed. Colloquy receives more coverage in The Star, but is still not the focus of the article. The same goes for the Promo Magazine article. In all articles the focus is the survey produced by Colloquy, and per , "an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result."  All coverage in these sources is incidental. Now I consider sources presented by LuciferWildCat. As SL93 pointed out, the vast majority of search results are press releases. Per , we cannot accept press releases as . If this company does indeed meet the standard set out by , why have we not seen coverage in multiple independent sources in which the company itself is the focus? I have yet to see a single instance of coverage for the company itself that is both significant and independent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:PRODUCT||WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:V||WP:ORG)

Comment: it's corporate |spam for a non-notable agency with no sources but trivial mentions to prove the article's assertions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)