Talk:Polygon (blockchain)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it certainly meets the notability guidelines, and while currently a potential stub, is well cited. Polygon is now preferred over the Ethereum blockchain for many use-cases, especially new dApps, due to the low fees and quick transaction times compared to Ethereum. It is central to the crypto ecosystem, and is often used in, e.g. NFTs and Polymarket, which is the world's largest prediction market. The native token is the 31st biggest token by market cap and has a market cap of over 2.7 billion dollars. In short, the article is well cited and should certainly meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should not be deleted. --BlazingStar3321! (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Contested deletion

I unfortunately missed the deletion discussion, but this should comfortably pass WP:GNG. Some sources were discussed in the deletion discussion. There are thousands of news articles about Polygon, though the majority of them are in crypto niche news sources like CoinDesk (admittedly GUNREL), Cointelegraph, The Block and so forth. I'm sure I've also seen occasional coverage in Bloomberg, Forbes, WSJ and other more mainstream sources, but will need some time to dig them up. It's also the platform on which Polymarket runs, which has received a lot of coverage (especially in this election cycle) as the largest prediction market. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that this article, as it currently stands, does not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Recreation attempt

I draftified the original and intend to move it back soon. I added a handful of new reliable sources. It's not a drastic difference, but I would argue even the original demonstrated notability. In the AfD, a lot of reliable sources seemed to be deweighted based on speculation about possible churnalism (possibly based on a press release etc).

If our objective was to add a lot of WP:GREL sources to make notability more obvious, there are a lot more GREL-but-unimportant sources such as [1] [2], but I don't want to pad the article with insignificant content just for that purpose. I also don't necessarily want to prefer GREL sources over CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, The Block and so on. While those are not GREL, I would argue that they are actually the most authoritative and useful sources in this particular field. Reporters at those outlets tend to understand crypto topics a lot better than most MSM journalists, resulting in better reliability as well as breadth and depth. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Polymarket source

@Grayfell: I understand the sources for Polymarket running on Polygon are of questionable reliability, but it seems like an uncontroversial fact that (AFAIK) isn't WP:LIKELY to be challenged.

Let's say we remove any details like "popular" for now. (We could probably find a separate source for any such details later, without it necessarily needing to mention Polygon.) Would you then agree that the statement that Polymarket runs on Polygon could be included insofar as no challenges arise? Do you think it's better to use one of the less-reliable sources, or no source?

While it's not a reason to bend any rules, it feels a bit silly that we list things like the Firozabad partnership (which I'd be ambivalent to removing) but not the most notable application on Polygon. Polymarket also mentions Polygon without a clear source, so if there's an issue here it would mirrored there as well. Hopefully we can find some remedy. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)