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. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Budli.in[edit]

Budli.in (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

non notable firm. Some of the refs look impressive, but the impressive ones such as the BBC are not about the company, but about recycling in India generally. The awards are trivial, the article section promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning Delete An idea might be useful for this one. But again is there any news coverage which covered this startup alone like BBC, Business Standard or Live mint. These are general article covered by popular Indian news media, but hard to find notable coverage for this one Light2021 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means as the nomination is exact with the concerns and we should especially be careful and aware of these subjects, where they are notorious for "pay for" news and are heavily involved with always advertising, none of that article itself actually amounts to substance or convincing, instead it advertises what the company would publish itself; the clear advertising contributions and account also emphasizes it. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 25 October 2016 (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.