Deletion of Rhub communications

Comment: Every link above is an article from a credible news source in the technology and business press -- not press releases. The links only include coverage for a year and a half of the company's 5-year history from the company's website). It is a small company, and according to , "...arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY)

Comment: per nom.  Researched company and it is non-notable per WP guidelines.  Appears to be edited by users with single purpose  and promotional intent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: spam and COI can be overcome, but this company appears utterly non-notable per . Zero hits in gnews, and it's hard to find any web searches that are even borderline |reliable and |verifiable. Certainly fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:CORP||WP:GNG)

Comment: Of the provided sources, most appear to be press releases or are from non-Reliable Sources. There are a few that appear legitimate but minor. The http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/07/12/daily40.html Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal reports on a collaboration with another, larger company. The http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09172/978709-467.stm Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and http://www.pcmag.com/business/article/turbomeeting-appliance-offers PC Magazine items are puzzlers in that they appear to have been written by journalists at the publications, but are written in a totally boosterish, press-release-ish tone. Basically this doesn't add up to much in the way of notability per . And given the history of repeated spamming documented by Allistair, I still favor delete and possibly salt. (And given the above history, has anyone done a whois search on the current SPA, Happysantacruz
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY)