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. ✗plicit 23:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gitcoin[edit]

Gitcoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

If the notability equals three references, the subject of the article screams for draftifying first. — Kochas 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. — Kochas 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Kochas 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Kochas 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how relevant this is to the deletion discussion but there's an article on the Forbes website about it. Piglop (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or draftify: I would have draftified because of the obvious COI, but since we are at AfD now, I can !vote delete too. There's some coverage on CoinTelegraph, and it seems previous discussions at WP:RSN were leaning towards considering it non-reliable. MarioGom (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Yet another crypto spam piece about a non-notable platform founded within the past few years. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2021 (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.