Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin Protocol

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. BTW - being created by a blocked user isn't a rationale for deletion. Missvain (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin Protocol

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine sources about funding and aspirations. The creator Isingness was blocked for advertising. Coin (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject seems notable. There are supposedly a number of references. Created by blocked user can not be sole reason of deletion. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - apart from being promotional spam from a banned user, I don't see that it meets WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not significant - I can't determine what significant things they've done in the blockchain space. The website reads more like a glorified LinkedIn page for the team's skills, than a resource on the 'Origin Protocol'. Haxwell (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2020 (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.