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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plivo[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on a nn private business. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR driven, such as [1] on forbes.com/sites/ which is a user submitted area. Article cited to passing mentions, routine corporate news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2018 (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.