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 05:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon (blockchain)

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

Polygon (blockchain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't quite come close to the generally accepted in-depth, reliable, independent, secondary sources required to satisfy WP:ORG plus I believe WP sets the bar a little higher for crypto companies does it not?

Please see below for the source assessment table

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No White paper written by the company ~ There may be some element of informal peer review ~ In-depth? Maybe but because it's a white paper it is not independent ✘ No
No Company website No Not subject to editorial oversight Yes Plenty of depth but obviously not independent ✘ No
~ The publication appears independent and reliable but the majority of the article consists of an interview with the founders with little to no editorial oversight and interviews are primary sources ~ Just how reliable can an interview with the organisation's founders published in a local newspaper be? Yes Interview aside there is some depth of coverage here. ~ Partial
~ Routine coverage possibly based on a press release Yes RSP says that Bloomberg is reliable for business coverage although I have noticed some churnalism in its output. Hard to say as the article is paywalled ? Unknown
No Company profile on NASDAQ ~ If it's just being used to verify the ticker symbol then yes this is reliable Yes Some depth of coverage present ✘ No
No Yahoo finance is different to Yahoo News and the content appears to be aggregated from a source for which there is no consensus on reliability No No consensus on FXEmpire's reliability Yes Yes, there's depth but it reads like a press release ✘ No
~ Source is independent but the nature of the content is just a routine funding announcement Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable. - WP:RSP ~ It does just look like a press release about a routine funding announcement ? Unknown
Yes Appears to be written independently Yes RSP says that Bloomberg is reliable ~ The article appears to focus on JPMorgan's adoption of the blockchain and not the blockchain itself ~ Partial
Yes Appears to be written by a former staff member but curiously the only mention of Polygon is at the top of the page. Did they perhaps sponsor this article? Some clarity is needed here. ~ Former Forbes staff so maybe No This doesn't seem to be about the company ✘ No
Yes Definitely independent Yes Publication has a good track record No Doesn't mention the subject ✘ No
Yes Most likely independent Yes Reliable per the consensus at RSP ~ Focuses on one event but not the organisation as a whole ~ Partial
~ Appears to be closely aligned with a routine press release/announcement Yes Reliable per the consensus as WP:RSP No It's just a few sentences and appears to be a routine press announcement ✘ No
Can't see the whole article because it's paywalled To the best of my knowledge a consensus on Fortune's reliability has yet to be reached Can't see the whole article because it's paywalled ? Unknown
No TechCrunch isn't independent No Reliable for some things but not notability No Routine press announcement ✘ No
No TechCrunch again No Reliable for some things but not notability No Routine press announcemet based on an interview ✘ No
Hard to say with these listicles. Perhaps it's a little independent but not entirely ~ ime's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. - WP:RSP No Theres a few lines there but nothing appraoching WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
No TechCrunch again No I don't think WPs consensus has changed as far as I am aware No General news article ✘ No
Yes Appears to be published relatively independently No For some things maybe. For verifying notability, no. ~ Perhaps but it does seem like a routine press announcement ✘ No
~ Former staff writer so it's anybody's guess ~ Perhaps, the line between staff writer and contributer appears blurry here No As far as I can tell it doesn't mention Polygon directly ✘ No
~ One can't be sure with local news articles Yes India Today is reliable, I think. No Appears to be a routine press announcement ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Signal Crayfish (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclaimer: I don't own any MATIC and don't claim to be an expert on the blockchain/currency. However, its utility and billion-dollar market cap does appear to warrant an article (imo), but I think more points of view should be given before deletion is considered. Electricmaster (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Have WP's editors reached a consensus on the WP:UNICORNNOTABILITY policy yet?Signal Crayfish (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 September 2024 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FPolygon_%28blockchain%29
No tags for this post.