Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plutora

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plutora

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant self-promotion of a non-notable startup company. A single technical Gartner-review on innovative (aka "interesting future concept") companies is not significant coverage. The only other source [1] mentions the company in passing: "an early-stage Australian company with offices in San Francisco. Like ServiceNow, Plutora uses the SaaS delivery model. Though it has raised just a small seed round so far, it's quietly winning fans and gaining buzz in the devops world". That's the dictionary definition for a possibly promising, but currently non-notable startup. Other Google hits are announcements and self-published or -distributed press releases. GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing useful and simply a plethora (or maybe a pluthora, pun intended) of press releases. The company is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable. Not much to add besides that. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I found in the web is self promotion of the company. Wishing them good luck to be worthy of Wikipedia article in some years, but now it's not notable company Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.